ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South-West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked-

Voter Registration (Young People)

Philip Hollobone: What estimate the Electoral Commission has made of the number of people under 25 years old who are not registered to vote.

Gary Streeter: The Electoral Commission informs me that it published its most recent national estimate for under-registration in England and Wales in 2005. This found that 16 per cent. of eligible 18 to 24-year-olds were not registered. However, recent research published by the commission found that in a small number of case study areas approximately 56 per cent. of those under 25 years old were missing from the registers. The commission plans further research on that issue.

Philip Hollobone: Does my hon. Friend share my serious concern and alarm, given that the implication of those shocking statistics is that hundreds of young people in Kettering, thousands of young people throughout Northamptonshire and tens of thousands of young people throughout our country will not be able to take part in voting for a change of Government at the next general election because they are not on the electoral register?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and the Electoral Commission informs me that it is planning a campaign, which will take place before the next general election, with a range of activities targeted at young people. The campaign will include online advertising on sites that the group uses, such as Facebook, along with advertising on television and radio and in magazines. Registration is an urgent matter, and my hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to it.

Peter Soulsby: I welcome the measures that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, but does he agree that registering people to vote is far too important to be done on the cheap, and that there is no substitute in many parts of the country and with many target groups for knocking on doors, finding out who lives there and making sure that they are registered to vote?

Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is the responsibility of electoral returning officers throughout the country. The Electoral Commission is introducing better and clearer guidelines for them on the activity that it expects. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we must find those young people and make sure that they are put on the electoral register so that they are at least given the opportunity to vote come polling day.

Robert Smith: One very worrying thing about young people not voting is that they are the people on whom the decisions will have the longest-term effect. When I go into schools I find that enthusiasm for politics is great among the younger age group, so will the Electoral Commission consider conducting research on whether a reduction in the voting age to 16 might engage people in the political system while they are at school and before they get lost?

Gary Streeter: It is an interesting point, but I am afraid that at the most recent general election only 37 per cent. of those aged 18 to 25 could be bothered to vote, and until that percentage increases the case for 16-year-olds being given the right to vote has not been made.

Voter Participation

John Robertson: What steps the Electoral Commission plans to take to maximise voter participation at the forthcoming general election.

Gary Streeter: The commission informs me that, to encourage voter registration ahead of the general election, it will run a multi-media campaign using television, radio, press and online advertising. That activity will be targeted at the groups that are less likely to be registered, including young people, students, certain ethnic minority communities, service personnel and UK citizens living overseas.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer, but does he agree that although it is not illegal not to vote, it is illegal not to give the registration officer the necessary information? Have we not have reached the point at which we should marry up the two?

Gary Streeter: The House would have to consider that issue, and it would involve a change in the law. The Electoral Commission is always in the marketplace for interesting ideas, and I shall make sure it is aware of the hon. Gentleman's representations, but in the end it will be a matter for this House.

Andrew Robathan: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to column 288 at yesterday's Prime Minister's questions, when it was pointed out that the Army Families Federation has carried out trials showing that the majority of troops serving overseas will be unable to vote. In order to maximise voter participation, will my hon. Friend speak again to the Electoral Commission and take on board the point that I have made before, which is that there should be one registration when people join the armed forces and an encouragement to cast proxy votes, so that when they serve their country abroad, which involves the possibility of dying for their country, they have the opportunity to vote?

Gary Streeter: That is a very important matter, and the Electoral Commission is extremely alive to it. The commission is working closely with the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence, Royal Mail, the British Forces Post Office and electoral administrators to ensure that everything is done to improve the situation. Given the tight time scales involved in exercising a postal vote once a general election is called, my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point that proxy voting may be the right answer. The commission is certainly aware of that.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked-

DFID Audit

Hugh Bayley: How many days National Audit Office staff spent in developing countries when auditing the expenditure of the Department for International Development in 2009.

Edward Leigh: I have been asked to reply.
	During 2009, National Audit Office staff spent a total of 183 days in developing countries as part of the NAO's financial and value for money audit work relating to DFID. That total includes days spent in developing countries both by NAO employees and by employees of audit firms that the NAO engaged to assist it with its audit of DFID's annual resource accounts.

Hugh Bayley: That amounts to barely two days per country in which DFID has programmes-programmes that involve billions of pounds. Today the International Development Committee published its annual report on DFID's performance and said that although it welcomes the continued rise in DFID's budget, it is concerned that DFID's staff is being reduced, making it harder to ensure that money is well spent in the field. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Public Accounts Commission to get the Comptroller and Auditor General to look at the problem, write a report and consider whether additional audit staff are needed to ensure that DFID money is well spent in the field?

Edward Leigh: Constitutionally, the Comptroller and Auditor General is, quite rightly, completely independent in what he determines to study for the Public Accounts Commission and the Public Accounts Committee. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which I shall relay to the Comptroller and Auditor General. To be completely clear, the NAO has worked recently-this year-in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Malawi, Ghana, Kenya and India, so it takes very seriously the work of DFID and will continue its work.

Denis MacShane: Through the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), I request that the National Audit Office look particularly-[Hon. Members: "Wrong one!"] I am terribly sorry-I mean the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee; forgive me. Will the hon. Gentleman look specifically at how DFID money in Sierra Leone is spent? An hon. Member and other friends have just come back from there with the most alarming stories of diversion of DFID aid into the pockets of Ministers down there, and we really need to get Sierra Leone under full transparent audit.

Edward Leigh: That is an extremely good point. I shall of course relay the right hon. Gentleman's point of view to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I am sure he would be very happy to undertake a study in Sierra Leone if that were indeed appropriate.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked-

Church Music

Michael Fabricant: What the policy is of the Church Commissioners on encouraging the use of music as part of church and cathedral worship.

Stuart Bell: The Church's Liturgical Commission promotes and develops understanding of liturgy and its use in the Church. The commission sees music as an integral part of the Church's worship, not an optional extra.

Michael Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lichfield cathedral is the only cathedral to boast an entire orchestra, which, three times a year, gives public performances of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and so on, but also, on other occasions, performs for worship? Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I invite the entire House here today to come to one of these concerts in Lichfield cathedral, although Members will have to pay for their own tickets?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that kind invitation. He may be aware that the Lichfield cathedral choir heads off to America after Easter, but the cathedral frequently welcomes impressive visiting choirs. If his invitation is to hear the cathedral choir in New York, I am sure that the House would be very happy to accept.

Patrick Cormack: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) says about our diocesan cathedral. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that cathedral music is one of the great glories of our English heritage? It is terribly important that cathedral choir schools are able to continue, so can he assure us that they are getting all the support that they need?

Stuart Bell: As we are talking about cathedrals, I echo the views of the hon. Gentleman. He is of course aware of course that the Liturgical Commission takes a strong interest in these things. We are aware of all the traditions of the Church in relation to church music. We understand the transformative potential of music within Church of England worship; it is part and parcel, if I may say so, of our heritage, our religion, and our beliefs. It gives us all great satisfaction to hear cathedral music.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South-West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked-

Investigatory Powers

Gordon Prentice: What recent assessment has been made of the adequacy of the Electoral Commission's investigatory powers.

Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman will know that Parliament recently agreed to strengthen the commission's existing powers through the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. However, these new powers will not come into effect until secondary legislation is agreed by Parliament. The commission informs me that it welcomes the cross-party support that is to occur early in the new Parliament.

Gordon Prentice: What does that say about today's Conservative party, which told the Electoral Commission that it would not- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have other Members acting as arbiters on the appropriateness or otherwise of what Members are saying. Let us hear Mr. Prentice.

Gordon Prentice: As I was saying, what does it say about today's Conservative party that officials and staff of the Conservative party refused to co-operate with the Electoral Commission during its investigation into Bearwood Corporate Services? That is all documented in the press releases and supporting reports from the Electoral Commission. Will the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) advise me whether he thinks the powers of the Electoral Commission should be enhanced to compel the attendance of witnesses when matters concerning possible breaches of electoral law are being discussed?

Gary Streeter: Parliament has already acted on that, as I said in my answer. The hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of the House, will know that the Speaker's Committee does not go into individual cases, but if he would like to look at what the Electoral Commission's website says about the particular case he has raised, he will see that after a thorough investigation, the donations in question were deemed permissible. I am sure he will be good enough to welcome that.

Nicholas Winterton: Can my hon. Friend say whether the investigatory powers of the Electoral Commission include an ability to prevent political parties in the House from seeking to influence how particular Members vote, particularly on matters relating to their area or their constituency? It seems that the power of the Whips and the political parties is such that it deters people from voting, because they say, "It doesn't matter which party we vote for; we can't get somebody who will represent us."

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I am glad to say that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Electoral Commission.

Joan Walley: Given that the Electoral Commission is currently undertaking a review of ward boundaries in Stoke-on-Trent, will the hon. Gentleman assure me that it has sufficient resources to ensure that there is full public participation in deciding on the boundaries of the new local wards?

Gary Streeter: That is of course a matter for the local government boundary committee, which is about to become a stand-alone agency, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that the matter will be conducted in its usual thorough way, including hearing the views of local people.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked-

English Heritage (Church Repairs)

Anne McIntosh: What discussions the Church Commissioners have had with English Heritage on grant funding for church repairs in 2010-11.

Stuart Bell: Church officials meet regularly with English Heritage, which, together with the Heritage Lottery Fund, offers grants for urgent repairs to listed places of worship. The scheme continues to be oversubscribed and is due to end in March 2011, so we expect to have discussions with English Heritage this year about its continuation.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but it is extremely alarming that from the end of March next year there is no guarantee of funds being available. Will he also confirm that the amount of funding has been severely reduced in recent years, meaning that fewer churches are eligible for it?

Stuart Bell: The Church itself has spent £110 million on current repairs, due in no small measure to the listed places of worship grant scheme, which saw VAT reduced to 5 per cent. The Church can be grateful that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, pushed that through. We are looking to continue discussions with the European Commission and others to ensure that it is continued. As to the fact that grant money has been reduced, that is regrettably that is the case.

Dean of Derby

Robert Key: How many applications the diocese of Derby has received for the vacant post of dean of Derby.

Stuart Bell: The panel tasked with appointing the new dean of Derby was pleased to receive a very healthy number of inquiries and many good-quality applications following its advertisement. Some 30 applications were considered at the long-listing stage.

Robert Key: Given that the Church of England ordains about 400 priests a year, of whom half are women, was the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was that not one of the applicants was a woman priest? Does he think that reflects badly on the recruitment process, and that there is some perceived institutional barrier to women making progress in the Church of England?

Stuart Bell: I might in the narrow context of female deans, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the number of women archdeacons is steadily increasing. There are currently 15 of them-14 per cent. of the posts filled. We have two excellent female deans, at the hon. Gentleman's own cathedral in Salisbury and at Leicester cathedral. I agree with him, however, that we ought to do more and that there ought not to be a glass ceiling.

Minster Status

Andrew Pelling: Whether the Church Commissioners allocate funding to the Church of England for the purpose of assisting the consideration of applications for minster status.

Stuart Bell: Minster status in and of itself has no legal meaning, so the Church Commissioners do not allocate funds for it. That is an example of God moving in mysterious ways.

Andrew Pelling: Would it be possible, when God oversees this process, to put aside the issues of mammon? The business community in Croydon is pushing the idea of minster status, but is it more a matter for the religious ministry of the Church and its Christian care and compassion within the diocese?

Stuart Bell: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who wants a minster in Croydon. Coming from the north-east, I have one in York, another in Beverley and one in Sunderland. I would be happy to speak to the bishop on the issue, and the hon. Gentleman might also wish to drop him a line.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked-

Rape Cases

Madeleine Moon: What recent discussions she has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the prosecution of cases involving allegations of rape.

Vera Baird: I have frequent discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions about the prosecution of rape cases. He is at the start of a national programme of visits across the entire service, a primary focus of which will be discussing with front-line staff cases involving violence against women and rape. The notion now is that we know what good practice is, but it needs to be spread consistently across the country.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that excellent response. In January, I addressed an excellent south Wales CPS seminar on the investigation and prosecution of rape, and saw first hand the improvement in the way in which the criminal justice system responds to rape and that the number of prosecutions is increasing. However, how are we going to support CPS staff when they are faced with defence lawyers in court who claim that a woman's behaviour-the amount of alcohol she has consumed, how she dresses and whether she was flirtatious-was an invitation to rape? After all, we do not say that leaving a window open is an invitation to burglary. How can a woman be responsible for a man's action purely because of how she dresses and so on? I would welcome my hon. and learned Friend's comments on that.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. May I tell her how much positive feedback there was from the CPS on her address earlier this year?
	The CPS now takes very seriously the way in which myths and stereotypes can affect its own decision making-it tries to train that out-and how they can be highly relevant in court. Whether the CPS or barristers are doing the advocacy, the CPS makes a point of ensuring that the use of those myths and stereotypes is challenged. Judges-obviously totally independently of the Government or the CPS-now have comprehensive training from the Judicial Studies Board, which includes discussion of how to deal with the kind of assumptions that juries can make or be persuaded to make. There are some new directions in the new bench book, in which the judges are exploring what they can properly say to juries to ensure that a balanced approach is taken, so that the evidence is evaluated in a fair and informed way without that kind of prejudice taking a role.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I just make the point that there are nine questions in this section, and I would like to get through as many of them as possible, so we need to keep it tight.

David Simpson: How prevalent is the practice of plea bargaining across the United Kingdom in relation to rape or serious sexual attacks?

Vera Baird: I would have to write to the hon. Gentleman with precise figures, but I am sure that sometimes plea negotiations take place. Sometimes a complainant is not very keen to carry on with a prosecution, and some lesser verdict might none the less put the man on the sex offenders register and fire a shot across his bows, as it were. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants detailed figures, I will write to him with them.

Serious Fraud Office

John Howell: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office in deterring and prosecuting economic crime.

Vera Baird: I am reasonably pleased with the significant progress that the SFO has made over the past two years. It has reduced the time taken to deal with referrals from the public to 20 working days on average, and reduced the time by an average of nine months to investigate and prosecute crime. It has a 91 per cent. conviction rate, achieved its first ever serious crime prevention order this year, and recovered assets valued at more than £8 million-progress in the right direction.

John Howell: I thank the Solicitor-General for that answer, but when Jessica de Grazia looked at the SFO and produced her report back in June 2008, she identified a number of serious failings and deficiencies. What steps has the Solicitor-General taken to deal with those failings and deficiencies?

Vera Baird: There was, of course, a whole transformation programme flowing from the de Grazia report, and there was a new director in the form of Richard Alderman and a good deal of change in the higher management echelons of the SFO. The progress made was independently evaluated by the Cabinet Office capability review team in December 2009, and it regarded the SFO as having made very significant strides and improvements since that transformation programme came into play.

David Howarth: I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree that it is important that the SFO has sufficient resources to carry out its functions on economic crime, but can she confirm that the SFO has not received any specific funding for its anti-corruption work for at least 12 months?

Vera Baird: Yes, that is right, as I understand it, but none the less a good deal of work is going on in that direction. I think that there is a question later on this, but probably about 9 per cent. of the funding has, I think, gone into that area, and two specific sections of its work force are dealing with it. Clearly, any specific funding comes through a different kind of funding stream for particular cases. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the SFO has always been funded in that way, and clearly any such demands will be treated sympathetically.

Jonathan Djanogly: Fraud is now costing the United Kingdom about £30 billion a year compared with an estimated £13 billion only three years ago. It seems that the SFO is increasingly using plea bargaining as a tactic to move its cases along. Does the Solicitor-General accept that our current statutory framework is in need of reform to accommodate that?

Vera Baird: I am not quite sure where the hon. Gentleman thinks that the statutory framework needs to be amended to cope with plea bargaining. A new framework set up by the Law Officers has been accepted and taken forward by the SFO, and is currently very much in play. I do not think that he should take the view that fraud increased from £13 billion to £30 billion between the two assessments, because they were done on wholly different bases-the second one postdated the setting up of the National Fraud Authority, which has done a far more thorough job because it has had the resources to do so.
	Fraud is a real problem in this country today. Plea bargaining has a role to play in the quick dispatch of cases, but it always has to be made clear that people who commit fraud will be punished severely by the courts and will not be able to buy their way out of trouble.

Jonathan Djanogly: We are actually receiving independent reports that the framework is not fit for purpose. What assurances can the Solicitor-General provide that the SFO is developing its flexible case criteria to minimise growing concern about overlap with other counter-fraud organisations, and has she considered a unified agency?

Vera Baird: I am not sure what input the hon. Gentleman is getting, but I would be pleased if he could forward to me the comments that he says back up his question. It does not seem to me that the plea bargaining structures, which is the point he started with, impinge very strongly on any statutory framework, but, as I said, I would be pleased to hear. The various agencies tackling fraud-the SFO, the CPS fraud section and the NFA-work together very closely, and where there is evidence of potential or historical overlap, they work consistently and as quickly as they can to remove it and ensure a streamlined approach.

Action Fraud Helpline

Rosie Cooper: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Action Fraud helpline.

Vera Baird: Action Fraud is a helpline and website offering a central point for individuals and small to medium-sized businesses that have been the subject of fraud. It offers the option of being referred to Victim Support and gives fraud prevention advice, and although it has only been in place since October, it has certainly increased the amount of fraud reported, and assisted in intelligence gathering.

Rosie Cooper: Can the Solicitor-General tell me whether the Action Fraud helpline is up and running in my area, and say precisely how it will help my constituents who have been the victims of fraud?

Vera Baird: Yes, it is now. The Acton Fraud helpline started in October 2009, and it is functioning nationally, but the question is how to promote it. We need to promote it region by region, so that instead of it being inundated with complaints straight away, they come in at a rate such that it can expand to meet them. Although the helpline started in the midlands, it is now in the north-west, where my hon. Friend's constituency is, as well as the north-east, where mine is. The helpline will offer information to prosecutions, if that is practical, as well as victim support, and it will absolutely ensure that evidence of fraud brought by individuals goes into the intelligence that we use to try to wipe out fraud more broadly.

Retail Crime

Anne McIntosh: How many prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has brought for offences related to retail crime in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.

Vera Baird: The records maintained by the CPS do not identify retail crime separately, but the Office for Criminal Justice Reform says that 72,609 defendants were proceeded against for stealing from shops and stores in 2008. That is the latest figure, which exceeded the figure for the preceding year, which was 67,644.

Anne McIntosh: I thank the Solicitor-General for that reply, but does she share my concern and that of retailers, particularly small shopkeepers and newsagents, about the rising tide of retail crime, including burglaries and shop theft, when a degree of violence is used? What measures does she expect her Department to be able to take to prosecute such cases successfully and to send out a strong message that her Department and the Government generally are dealing seriously with the increase in such crime?

Vera Baird: We do take crime very seriously. It is an established principle of sentencing that when a theft or other retail crime is visited upon a small business, the degree of violence is an aggravating factor to take into account, because it can obviously cause more damage. That is a principle that we support entirely. As I said, convictions have increased, and we intend to be vigilant to ensure that they continue to do so.

Tom Watson: Will my hon. and learned Friend satisfy herself that the Crown Prosecution Service has not successfully prosecuted cases on the basis of police files that were compiled using evidence illegally obtained by  New s of the World phone hacking?

Vera Baird: Yes-I am not sure that any connection has been made, but I am very well aware of the issue, and it is an issue well raised.

Serious Fraud Office

Hugh Bayley: How much the Serious Fraud Office spent on investigating offences of trans-national bribery in 2009.

Vera Baird: The SFO very much recognises the importance of that work. It has an anti-corruption and an international assistance unit working successfully with foreign Governments, and around 15 large-scale anti-corruption cases are currently under investigation. So far this financial year, the SFO has spent about 9 per cent. of its funding on such work.

Hugh Bayley: The SFO needs more money to investigate and prosecute bribery cases. The Solicitor-General will have seen that BAE Systems was required to pay $400 million to the US Department of Justice in relation to the al-Yamamah case. Will she consider how financial penalties paid in such cases in the UK could be used to fund the cost of enforcing the law against bribery?

Vera Baird: Yes, there is a relationship already between asset recovery, in a broad and not technical sense, and a premium on that, as it were, for the organisation that has recovered the assets. The issue is one that we are looking at, in order to ensure that, in the criminal sense as it were, the polluter pays.

Patrick Cormack: In the context of asset recovery, will the hon. and learned Lady warmly commend the co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana, which are working increasingly closely together to combat all forms of crime, in all parts of the island of Ireland?

Vera Baird: Yes, I am sure that is something that should be thoroughly commended, as part of a pattern of co-operative behaviour that is reflected across the UK these days.

Rape Cases

Jim Cunningham: What recent steps she has taken to reduce the time taken between charges being brought and court proceedings in rape cases.

Vera Baird: The Crown Prosecution Service tries to ensure that at the time of charge, cases are as trial-ready as possible, so that subsequent delays in the court process can be avoided. Ensuring that whenever possible one specialist rape prosecutor takes on a case from start to finish contributes to better case management and better timeliness.

Jim Cunningham: How does the number of reported rapes compare with the number of convictions for rape?

Vera Baird: The conviction rate from charge to conviction is 58 per cent., which represents a significant increase on what the rate has been historically. By analogy, 65 per cent. is the conviction rate for robbery. There is obviously still room for improvement, but things are going in the right direction. It is imperative that we send out a message that rapists are now being convicted at that rate, so that women-and, indeed, men-have the confidence to report, and do not feel that they will be put through the mill again. There is still a large drop-out rate between complaint and getting to court, but we are trying to tackle that in a range of ways. We now have 30 sexual assault referral centres, and a whole phalanx of independent sexual violence advisers who befriend and support a complainant from the minute they come to the police until the end of the case. This gives the complainant better sustenance than they would have had before.

Serious Fraud Office

John Robertson: What the policy of the Serious Fraud Office is on assistance for those who have lost substantial savings to fraudsters.

Vera Baird: The Serious Fraud Office puts victims at the heart of its work. In this financial year it has recovered about £9 million from fraudsters, and £4 million of that has been paid back to victims.

John Robertson: My hon. and learned Friend and I both served on all 39 sittings of the Standing Committee on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It was never stated in those deliberations that the money had to go back to the victims. Why has only £4 million of that £9 million gone back to the victims? Does that meet their needs and reflect how much they lost in the first place?

Vera Baird: The SFO puts a premium on ensuring that money is repaid to victims whenever possible. Sometimes, however, it is not practical to identify where money has come from. On some occasions it has come from organisations, and is returned to them; on others, it comes into the public purse. When dealing with assets recovery, the SFO's intention is, first and foremost, to ensure repayment to identifiable victims.

Barry Sheerman: Insider trading is one of the most awful kinds of fraud. Is the Serious Fraud Office able to cope with looking after the victims of this specialist fraud, especially in the light of the fact that if the opposition got into power, they would abolish the SFO?

Vera Baird: Like a large number of the things that the opposition would do if they got in, that would be seriously unwise. The SFO very much has its eye on the whole insider trading agenda. It has specialists to look into it, and they can help to support the victims of that particularly heinous form of fraud.

Joint Venture Property Investments

Andrew Pelling: What recent guidance the Law Officers' Departments have issued to Government Departments on the legal rights of local authorities undertaking joint venture property investments.

Vera Baird: By long-standing convention observed by successive Administrations and embodied in the ministerial code, the fact that the Law Officers have or have not advised on a particular issue, and the content of any advice, are not disclosed outside Government.

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for that answer, because it gives me the opportunity to highlight what might be appropriate practice for supporting local authorities that get involved in joint ventures on the basis of property speculation, as Croydon is doing. I appreciate that the economics might be a matter for another Department, but would she think it appropriate to give local authorities good guidance on their legal exposure when they get involved with special purpose vehicles and joint ventures with property companies and the private equity business?

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to inform me of the nature of his concern the other night. His council has not sought Government funding, or any approval or consents, for the special purpose vehicle that is the cause of his concern. The Government do not therefore have any relationship or involvement with the council in that regard. He is right, however, to suggest that if the council sought funding, consent or associated approval in the future, the Government would consider the nature of the venture with great care.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to questions to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), representing the House of Commons Commission, and to the Leader of the House. Unfortunately, I note that the hon. Member for North Devon is not here.  [Interruption.] Ah, the hon. Gentleman has arrived-and his arrival is most welcome. I call Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Mr. Speaker, this important issue has not suddenly-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting a little ahead of himself, and a bit confused. "Question 19" will suffice at this stage.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked-

Day Nursery

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What recent progress has been made on the establishment of a day nursery in the House.

Nick Harvey: My apologies, Mr. Speaker, as I think I may have caused the confusion.
	Following the Commission's decision to establish a nursery, a project board has been established and good progress is being made on drawing up the specifications.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Apologies for that slight slip, Mr. Speaker.
	This important issue has not suddenly arisen before the House. I believe that the process so far has been unacceptable and undemocratic. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that £400,000 has recently been spent on refurbishing Bellamy's bar, and that this proposal will cost an additional £400,000? Will he confirm whether that has been included in the House budget estimates for this financial year? Will he confirm whether the Finance and Services Committee-

Mr. Speaker: Order.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. At Question Time, a Member asks one question, with a modest preamble, which the hon. Gentleman has already had. He has asked his question; he must now listen to the answer.

Nick Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The recent refurbishment in Bellamy's involves a significant amount of work and furnishing that can be reused-certainly about a third of the cost can be used directly. The hon. Gentleman says that this has come about swiftly, but I would point out that there have been constant surveys of the need for child care provision here, and the decision has been taken to move swiftly with this project so that the option is available to new Members as early as possible in the new Parliament to take up this facility if they need it.

Joan Walley: It is often said that when we come into this place we do things for our grandchildren rather than for our children, because it takes so long to get anything done. The important thing, I say to the hon. Gentleman, is that we treat the House of Commons as the workplace of parliamentary democracy. Workplace nurseries are important. Will the hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that, after my 22 years in this place, there might be at least some prospect now of having a workplace nursery for my grandchildren, and those of other Members.

Nick Harvey: I hope that it will be available a great deal sooner than that. The project is making good progress. The detailed specification is being worked through at the moment. There are some difficulties, because of the nature of the building, but much work has gone into looking at the feasibility, and we intend the project to continue to make progress and to be ready by the end of August.

Peter Luff: I entirely share the perception of the need for such a day nursery, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the House of Commons should establish any such facility on an exemplary basis. Given that, as on this particular occasion, a nursery cannot comply with statutory guidance to providers, I hope he will search urgently for an alternative site-one that would comply with that guidance.

Nick Harvey: There will be no question whatever of progressing with any project that does not meet all the statutory norms. We are progressing the project in consultation with experts and providers, and there is no question whatever of cutting corners and not meeting proper standards.

Tom Watson: May I urge the hon. Gentleman not to be swayed by the anachronistic and vociferous views of a minority of MPs? There are plenty of places to get a beer in this place, but there is nowhere for our hard-working staff to drop off their kids.

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observation that this project fulfils a very real and serious need. Colleagues who have had to find facilities for their children at short notice will be better served by knowing that there is such a facility on site, and being run professionally.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked-

Parliamentary Questions

Mark Harper: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues to ensure the completeness and timeliness of answers to parliamentary questions for written answer.

Barbara Keeley: I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter in the House on previous occasions-for instance, in points of order on 9 and 23 February-and that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) raised it in a point of order on Tuesday. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and I take any concerns felt by Members about this very seriously, and we have held meetings and written to Ministers about their performance in answering parliamentary questions.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for taking the matter seriously, but I am afraid that her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions apparently do not. However, she will be pleased to learn-as, I am sure, will you, Mr. Speaker-that some progress has been made since I raised my point of order: only 19 of my questions are now outstanding, although eight have been outstanding for more than a month. At least the Department has answered my question about how many named day written questions it does answer on time-and I am sorry to say that for the last three years it has been the pitifully low proportion of 30 per cent. The position has not got worse, which is something, but it has not got any better either. In the few remaining weeks of the current Parliament, what efforts will the Deputy Leader of the House-and, indeed, the Leader of the House-make to persuade the Department to take its responsibilities to the House seriously?

Barbara Keeley: As the hon. Gentleman says, we have taken specific action in relation to the Department for Work and Pensions. The previous Deputy Leader of the House wrote to the Department and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I met a Minister and officials to discuss their performance. My office recently spoke to officials again. The Leader of the House has written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and both she and I spoke to the Secretary of State yesterday.

Barry Sheerman: I can tell my hon. Friend that many of us are given a very good service by most Departments, but I have one caveat: when the Cabinet Minister representing a Department is in another place, I find that I receive much slower service from the Department concerned.

Barbara Keeley: We have accepted recommendations from the Procedure Committee, and new procedures will operate in the new Parliament. There will be regular monitoring of late answering of questions, and further work will be done on challenging unsatisfactory answers. Better guidance on answering questions has already been provided for Ministers and officials, and the Prime Minister recently wrote to Cabinet colleagues reminding them of the need to answer questions both fully and in a timely manner.

Back-Bench Business Committee

Evan Harris: What discussions she has had with hon. Members on the means of implementing the House's decision to establish a Back-Bench business committee in time for the start of the next Parliament.

Barbara Keeley: The Leader of the House will table a motion to give effect to the resolutions of the House that were agreed following the recent debate on House of Commons reform.

Evan Harris: I think the whole House is pleased to hear that, and we should acknowledge that, but it is only half the answer to my question, which involves whether the "Wright" Standing Order will be brought forward. I hope the Deputy Leader of the House accepts that the most appropriate procedure would be to consult the Wright Committee members whose amendment, essentially, was carried last Thursday, to ensure that the detailed Wright Standing Order, and also motion 62 in the Remaining Orders and Notices-and the Standing Order tabled, too-are submitted to the House for decision. Can the hon. Lady tell us when that is likely to happen?

Barbara Keeley: The Leader of the House has to consider the motions that are required to give effect to resolutions of the House. Having looked at the motion tabled by the Reform of the House of Commons Committee, I note that some of it differs both from the recommendations in the Committee's report and from our debates. Because there are some departures, further consideration will be necessary. However, hon. Members can rest assured that there will be motions giving effect to the resolutions of the House, as the Leader of the House told the hon. Gentleman yesterday. We ought now to be pleased with the progress that we are making.

Robert Smith: May I reinforce the importance of this matter, and may I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to specify the respects in which the Wright Committee's proposals do not match what was voted for by the House? If we are to implement what was recommended by the Wright Committee and voted for by the House, a good starting point will surely be the Wright Committee's own idea of how Standing Orders should be used to give effect to the House's decision.

Barbara Keeley: The starting point is that some good steps were clearly taken, given that the resolutions were passed overwhelmingly. It is good that we know the will of the House. I can specify one of the details for which the hon. Gentleman has asked. Moving the power that currently resides with the Liaison Committee to the new Back-Bench business committee was not discussed during the debate. There are other differences between the resolutions that we agreed in the House last week and the detail of the motion, but the matter is being considered.

Parliamentary Questions

Philip Hollobone: If she will bring forward proposals to provide that hon. Members may only table one question for oral answer to each Government department at each Question Time.

Barbara Keeley: As I said to the hon. Gentleman in January, the Modernisation Committee concluded that Members should not have to choose between tabling the two types of question. It is for the hon. Gentleman to make representations to the Procedure Committee if he wants to change the way in which topical questions are processed.

Philip Hollobone: Everybody would agree that topical questions are a very good thing, but one of the unintended consequences is that some Members get to ask a Department two questions on one day, while others get no chance at all.

Barbara Keeley: I am in danger of repeating the last answer that I gave on this subject. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but in implementing topical questions, we have not forced a Member to choose between asking a substantive question and asking a topical question. A Member may have a reason for wanting to do both in one sitting. As the hon. Gentleman has said, topical questions are a successful innovation.

Shailesh Vara: It is all very well for questions to be asked and answered, but the Deputy Leader will recall that on 26 November last year during Business questions, she was refreshingly candid in saying that a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions had been rebuked for not answering questions properly-or, rather, was questioned about his accuracy. I note that the Leader of the House has written to the Secretary of State for Work and Questions, but will the Deputy Leader consider publishing a regular list of all offending Ministers with whom there have been meetings, or to whom the Secretary of State has written?

Barbara Keeley: I am not sure that that is necessarily appropriate. We have accepted the Procedure Committee's recommendations, and in the new Parliament there will be regular monitoring of the number of questions answered later than the conventional answering period of five days. There will also be the possibility that the Procedure Committee can challenge any answers that are considered unsatisfactory. With those two measures, we are feeling our way towards finding improvements. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are very concerned that we should start to get this right. There has been a great deal of action, and to some extent, we will have to wait and see whether it proves to have been good action.

Shailesh Vara: I am afraid that that simply will not do. The Deputy Leader of the House is on record on numerous occasions as having spoken about openness and transparency, but when she has an opportunity actually to do something about it, she fudges the issue. What is the problem with naming and shaming errant Ministers?

Barbara Keeley: I need to make it clear that I am always happy, as is the Leader of the House, to make representations to any Department on any situation that Members want to raise-and I shall leave it there. I have in the past been clear and candid about where steps have been taken. We are talking about working through issues with one Department, and the matter has been addressed.

Report Stage of Legislation

Nicholas Winterton: If she will bring forward proposals for the amendment of Standing Orders to prevent programme motions applying to the Report stage of legislation.

Barbara Keeley: The House has recently agreed to new procedures for managing its own business, including establishing a House Business Committee in the next Parliament. That Committee would make decisions about scheduling business, including the Report stage of Bills. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not be here to see the new Committee operate, but I am sure that he is pleased, as we are, with our progress on Commons reform.

Nicholas Winterton: Does not the Deputy Leader think it, both constitutionally and democratically, utterly wrong and unacceptable that a Bill should go to the other place with new clauses and Government and Opposition amendments undebated in this place? Members whose constituencies might be affected by the Bill have no opportunity whatever to participate in the debate.

Barbara Keeley: I have answered questions on this matter time and again. Programming does not always work perfectly, but it does serve to provide great certainty in timetabling the different stages of a Bill; it is, for instance, very helpful in timetabling Public Bill Committees. We must see these changes in the context of the other steps forward that we have taken in improving scrutiny, especially pre-legislative scrutiny and the introduction of evidence taking. Therefore, there are now many more opportunities for the scrutiny of Bills than previously.

Conduct in the Chamber

Michael Fabricant: What recent representations she has received on the operation of the Standing Orders governing conduct in the Chamber.

Barbara Keeley: We have not received any representations on either the current operation of Standing Orders or suggestions for amendments. The conduct of Members in the Chamber is a matter for your judgment, Mr. Speaker, not for Standing Orders.

Michael Fabricant: May I draw the Deputy Leader's attention to early-day motion 1054? In the natural hurly-burly of debate, it is understandable that a Minister may from time to time say something that subsequently turns out not to be correct-and the Minister then, quite properly, writes a letter to say, "I made a mistake in my remarks in the Chamber." Is it not right, however, that if a mistake is made in the Chamber, that should be corrected in the Chamber, rather than being the subject of a private letter?

Barbara Keeley: As I understand it, a Minister will correct information only if he was asserting that information. In the situation to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families was challenging some figures that an Opposition Member had given, and that is not a case for correction in the Chamber. When a debate is going backwards and forwards between Members, with comments being made and assertions being made and then challenged, that is not the same as when a Minister has given figures that are then proved to be wrong.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked-

Bellamy's Bar

Edward Leigh: Whether the House of Commons Commission plans to respond to the public petition against the closure of Bellamy's bar.

Nick Harvey: The petition has been noted, but the Commission remains of the view, reached on independent advice and after examining a number of options, that Bellamy's bar is the most suitable available site, and it is proceeding on that basis.

Edward Leigh: The previous Speaker summoned me in for a dressing down because the Public Accounts Committee had dared to criticise the House of Commons authorities for overspending on Portcullis House. Will he accept, however, that we must insist on value for money not only in the wider Whitehall apparatus but here, and that we have to consider whether it represents value for money to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on equipping facilities for the staff just in order to strip them out? Is there nowhere else in the House where we can deliver this unit more cost-effectively?

Nick Harvey: A number of alternative sites for the nursery were considered, including Speaker's Green, North Curtain corridor, Lower Ground Floor secretaries' area, Cloister Court and the Oratory, the Shooting Gallery, 2 the Abbey Garden basement, 14 Tothill street and 4 Millbank, but 1 Parliament street offered the most suitable accommodation, principally because of the ease of conversion and the proximity to the Chamber.

Katy Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my congratulations on the progress that has been made in this matter? I understand there has been a campaign in this place for at least 40 years for facilities of this nature, and it will not just be staff who benefit, but many hon. Members. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many Members will benefit as a result of these developments, regardless of where they end up being located?

Nick Harvey: I sincerely hope so. The Commission felt it was important to demonstrate to both new and current Members with small children that the House will help them to combine their parliamentary work with their family responsibilities.

Day Nursery

Christopher Chope: Whether the Finance and Services Committee has advised the House of Commons Commission on the cost of establishing a day nursery.

Nick Harvey: The Commission considered it important to have the nursery facility operating early in the new Parliament, before new Members had made other child care arrangements. This is a challenging time scale, and in view of the time constraints the Commission decided it was not feasible to consult the FSC for appraisal in the usual way.

Christopher Chope: But under Standing Order No. 144, the Finance and Services Committee should have been consulted, and is it not correct that the Chairman of the Commission knows that the project is not a good use of resources, is a reckless waste of taxpayers' money, and would never have been approved by the FSC? Is that not the reason why it was never referred to that Committee, and will he ensure that it now is?

Nick Harvey: There would be no question whatever of the Commission proceeding with something that it considered reckless or a waste of public money. Competitive tendering will be undertaken for the contracting of works and for running the nursery, and a significant proportion of the work paid for by the money that has been referred to as having been spent on Bellamy's bar over the past couple of years will be reused in the new scheme.

Simon Burns: May I press the hon. Gentleman on the answer he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)? Given that the hon. Gentleman attended the meeting of the Commission, can he tell the House which member of the Commission expressly voiced the opinion that the matter would not be put before the Finance and Services Committee-because it was known that Committee was not very happy with the proposal and the cost?

Nick Harvey: No, the decision not to refer the matter to the Finance and Services Committee was simply one of timing, because we wanted to make the facility available early in the new Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: Now we come to the business question- [ Interruption. ] Order. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) should calm himself-he has the weekend ahead, which he can enjoy- [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman should calm himself.

Business of the House

George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 15 March-General debate on defence in the world.
	Tuesday 16 March-Opposition Day (6th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "The Government's Handling of Equitable Life", followed by a debate on access to higher education. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 17 March-Second Reading of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill [ Lords].
	Thursday 18 March-General debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee (annual report).
	Friday 19 March-The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 22 March will include:
	Monday 22 March-A motion to approve three statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland devolution, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Child and Poverty Bill.
	Tuesday 23 March-Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 24 March-My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 25 March-Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 26 March-The House will not be sitting.

George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business.
	May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on his assertion at Question Time yesterday? He said that under this Government
	"the defence budget has been rising every year."-[ Official Report, 10 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 291.]
	That is a claim the Prime Minister made repeatedly at the Chilcot inquiry last Friday, but as he should know, spending on the Ministry of Defence was in fact cut in real terms between 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Leader of the House will know that the ministerial code requires Ministers to correct
	"any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
	Given that the Prime Minister is at risk of inadvertently misleading Parliament, when will he put the record straight?
	May we have a debate on the failures of the system of serious case reviews into child abuse? We all assumed when we read of the Fritzl case in Austria that it could never happen in Britain, but it has, despite the involvement of 100 social workers from more than 28 different agencies. It was a particularly horrifying situation and it is right that we do everything we can to protect the privacy of the victim and their families. However, as Professor Cantrill poignantly noted yesterday, every time a horrific case of child abuse leads to a serious case review the authorities pledge to learn from their mistakes, but we never seem to. Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that we need to debate the wider implications of publishing serious case reviews and, indeed, learning the lessons from them?
	May I again press the Leader of the House on the mystery surrounding the debate on overseas aid? I have raised it several times but never had an adequate answer. We were supposed to have had that annual debate in November, but it was cancelled. It was rescheduled for February but pulled at the last minute, and now it looks as though we may not get it before Dissolution. It is an important debate, particularly given our involvement in Haiti, and I would not want anyone to get the impression that the Secretary of State for International Development is too busy strategising the election to fulfil his ministerial duties to the House.
	Turning to the Wright Committee, may I welcome the enormous progress that the House made last Thursday, particularly in persuading the Government to get the Back-Bench business committee up and running by the beginning of the next Parliament as I had originally hoped? Swift work has been done on turning the resolutions into draft Standing Orders, but, as we heard in relation to Question 21, there is now some issue as to whether the resolutions on the Order Paper will have the support of the Government. Will the right hon. and learned Lady give a commitment that this issue will be debated and resolved before we rise for the Easter recess?
	When will we complete the truncated debate on the Procedure Committee's report into the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers? The right hon. and learned Lady will recognise the sense of dissatisfaction felt across the House about the way in which this matter has been handled. She tabled all the relevant resolutions and remaining orders, but although some were debated, others seem to have got stuck on the Order Paper. The Procedure Committee has asked for a decision to be made, but the Government are standing in the way. Is that not symptomatic of the old way of doing business that the House rejected last Thursday?
	Now that we know the date of the Budget, will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that we will have the usual four days of debate thereafter? Finally, given that it was the Prime Minister who chose to announce the date of the Budget, can I now assume that it will be the Prime Minister who will give us the date of the Easter recess? That is a bit of information that I have been seeking in vain from the right hon. and learned Lady since last October.

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister gave evidence to the Chilcot inquiry last Friday, he answered questions about defence spending in Prime Minister's questions yesterday, and there will be a defence debate on Monday. I strongly refute any suggestion or implication from the shadow Leader of the House that the Prime Minister has in any way misled the House or, indeed, anyone else. He has been absolutely forthright about the defence budget and about this Government's long-standing and strong commitment to ensuring that our defence forces have the resources they need. They have the full backing of the Government and, indeed, the British people.
	As far as serious case reviews are concerned, we publish the findings of such reviews so that lessons can be learned. The serious case review process was itself reviewed in 2006, and I do not remember the Opposition coming forward at that time with any suggestion that background information to such reviews and their conclusions should be published. The important thing is that the findings are published, which indeed they are in what is described as the executive summary, as well as the lessons that have to be learned. I think that we all share the absolute horror about the recent case. The lessons have been published and the Government have accepted the need to act on, and they are acting on, the issues that have arisen out of that case.
	On overseas aid, the Government feel very committed to and proud of our record. Before we came into government, there was no Department for International Development. We now have DFID and we have doubled our aid budget, so we are strongly committed to overseas aid, to keeping the House informed of the Government's work on international development and to listening to Members' concerns. There is obviously an opportunity to raise questions with the Secretary of State and Ministers in DFID questions, and there have been numerous statements. I have not been able to announce a debate on overseas aid within the next two weeks, but the shadow Leader of the House will see that there is a general debate on defence. However, there will be the usual opportunity to raise issues of international development in the debate following the Budget statement.
	As far as the Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, the Wright Committee, is concerned, as my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House said in answer to an earlier question, we should all be gratified with the progress that was made last week. We have agreed a major programme of reforms-the election of Select Committees Chairs by secret ballot, the election of Deputy Speakers by secret ballot, the election of Select Committee members, the ability of private Members to table motions that can be debated and voted on, and a new way of deciding the business of the House, whereby it will not be done by the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box after a process of private discussions among the usual channels, but by a Committee of the whole House.
	As my hon. Friend said, it is gratifying that there were very big majorities in the House last week to resolve this matter and move forward. We have the resolutions of the House. My task now is to make sure that the House is given an opportunity to endorse the Standing Orders that will give effect to them. My mandate is the will of the House as expressed in the resolutions. We need Standing Orders to give effect to them-nothing less. There is no suggestion that we should try to do anything less than what the House agreed to in the resolutions, because that would not be right.
	It is helpful that a resolution has been tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and others. We have that as a basis, and we will see whether the advice to us is that it is in exact compliance and that it does no less-but probably no more-than the resolutions of the House. Whether or not that is the case, I can assure the House that we will bring forward the Standing Orders, and there will be an opportunity for the House to endorse them before the next election.

David Heath: The problem of course is that there are not many days left now to do these things. I am waiting in particular for the motion to dissolve Parliament. I have asked for it for the last two weeks and got no reply. I hope that the motion will be tabled very soon now.
	I do not think that the right hon. and learned Lady answered the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House about whether there would be four days for the Budget debate. I hope that we will have four full days, because no one would want to suggest that the Government are attempting to cut and run after the Budget. Let us have four days, therefore, with one devoted to the position of manufacturing industry. This week's trade figures were absolutely disastrous, especially given the weakness of sterling. That ought to be a boost to exports and manufacturing industry, but in fact we are seeing the reverse, so may we have a debate on that?
	A fund-raising appeal was launched this morning at Clarence house for veterans suffering from combat stress. This is a very important issue, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly about it. May we have a statement from the Ministry of Defence about the arrangements for mental health facilities for those who have fought in wars on our behalf? Their symptoms often express themselves a long time after the episodes in which they were involved. We must make sure that we make proper provision for our veterans.
	Will the Leader of the House tell us when she expects to have the Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill? That very controversial Bill was introduced into another place in November last year. It has had three months of detailed scrutiny and it completes its proceedings there next week. We must surely give that Bill at least a Second Reading here before dissolution. Will the right hon. and learned Lady tell us when?
	May we have a brief debate on nuclear power? Planning permissions are being forced through by the new procedures, on the assumption that nuclear is the right answer for our energy needs. Many people feel that it is not, and we should establish a commission to look at these matters in depth.
	My last point would warm the heart of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), if he were in the Chamber. May we have a debate on jargon? I notice that the Local Government Association this week issued a book on banned jargon, saying that the public sector
	"should not hide behind impenetrable jargon and phrases".
	One of the key exhibits in the book is the word "wellderly", which I believe was coined by the right hon. and learned Lady. It is now banned from use in local government, so may we have a debate on the use of jargon?

Harriet Harman: Further to the assurance that I gave to the shadow Leader of the House that the House will be given an opportunity to make a decision on the Standing Orders giving effect to the resolutions following the House's decisions on the Wright Committee recommendations, because we will simply be giving effect to decisions that the House has made already, it should be possible to deal with those Standing Orders as part of the remaining orders of the day. Pursuant to what was raised earlier, however, I will obviously have to make sure that everybody agrees that the Standing Orders give effect as the House intended; I shall send drafts to everybody who has shown interest in the issue so that people can look at the Standing Orders, which will run to a number of pages. We simply want to get the science right. The House's position is clear. I am committed to getting the Standing Orders that give effect to the House's decision, and it ought to be possible for that to be done as part of remaining orders of the day.
	As far as the days for Budget debate are concerned, I have announced the business for next week and the provisional business for the week after. Of course, there is no attempt to curtail any debate on the economic situation, on our determination to secure the recovery rather than putting it at risk, on making sure that we protect front-line services rather than cut them, as the Conservatives would, and on making sure that we have a fair tax system rather than an unfair one that would help a few people at the top, which is the Tories' proposal.
	We look forward to having good debates that focus on all those issues, as well as the important issue of manufacturing in this country. Obviously, it is important that we support that, including through tax relief for business investment, which we want to keep going. We want to work to support not only manufacturing in this country but the expansion of the global economy. We are a trading nation and need to make sure that we work internationally, particularly with our partners in Europe, with whom most of our trade is, to ensure that there is growth across Europe. That will help our trade position.
	As far as veterans are concerned, I completely agree with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about combat stress. We have already given priority in primary care to veterans, but there is a whole range of other things that need to be addressed. We shall have an opportunity to revisit those important issues in the defence debate next Monday.
	As far as nuclear power is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will have been involved in and seen the statements about our wanting energy independence and a balanced energy policy. He will be familiar with the proceedings on the Energy Bill, which has been through the House recently. He will also know about the framework laid out by the Planning Act 2008. It allows for national policy statements and then for the issues to be looked at locally. We now have a much better framework for making sure that we have energy independence while reducing our carbon emissions.
	As far as jargon is concerned, the hon. Gentleman brings me extremely bad news: the word "wellderly" had hardly got off the ground before being banned. I thought I was supposed to be the person who bans things all the time, but now I discover that I am the victim of an unfair banning order. The point about the wellderly is that we rightly spend a lot of time in the House talking about frail elderly people and our national care service that is needed to support people in their own homes and to ensure that people can have residential care if they need it. However, we need to recognise that most elderly people are fit, well and active. They contribute to their families, often go out to work and play a big part in the community. They are the well elderly-the wellderly. That is one banning order that I am not submitting to.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. At least 24 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a statement to follow, as well as a topical debate and an important Second Reading debate, of interest notably, but not exclusively, to Northern Irish Members. There is much business to accomplish, so short questions and answers are required.

Jacqui Smith: May we have a debate about the role and independence of the excellent researchers in the House of Commons Library? This week, the shadow Home Secretary, who is a serial reoffender when it comes to dodgy crime statistics, embroiled the Library in controversy by quoting selectively from research. Would it not be better if, when using research from the House of Commons Library, all of us undertook to publish all that research, rather than selectively quoting for political advantage?

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who played a very big part in getting crime down in this country. As she says, the British crime survey, which is the best survey because it does not depend on reporting vagaries, shows that all crime-particularly violent crime-has gone down over the past 10 years.

John Whittingdale: May I repeat to the Leader of the House the question about when we can expect the Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill? Does she accept that it is a substantial, complex and controversial piece of legislation, and that it would be deeply unsatisfactory if the House were not able to give it proper scrutiny?

Harriet Harman: In the usual way, I have announced only the business for next week and the provisional business for the week thereafter. Obviously, any business following that will need to await announcement next Thursday.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: As some form of peace process starts again in the middle east, my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that 1.5 million Palestinians remain trapped, blockaded and increasingly destitute in Gaza. Will she find time in the course of the next two weeks or before Dissolution for the House to debate that continuing atrocity?

Harriet Harman: There will be an opportunity following the Budget debate to raise the question of our support for Palestinians and for a middle east settlement. I think that we all share the sentiments that my hon. and learned Friend has expressed.

Justine Greening: Earlier this week, on Tuesday, the Opposition held a debate about the deeply unpopular plans for unitary councils in Norwich and Exeter, and literally the next day, on Wednesday, the statutory instruments to bring the plans into force were withdrawn. That is a complete shambles, and residents in those communities need to know where they stand, so may we have a statement about what on earth is going on with the Government's plans?

Harriet Harman: The Opposition were able to hold an Opposition day debate about those issues earlier this week, so I do not have anything to add to that.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider holding a general debate on the Floor of the House about the training opportunities that have been presented to young people? Under this Administration we have seen a fantastic rise in the number of apprenticeship programmes, in stark contrast to the Opposition's days in government, so I really would like the opportunity for a general debate to ensure that the benefits associated with those programmes are fully understood by all.

Harriet Harman: I hope that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members will find an opportunity in the Budget debate to raise the issues of protecting young people from the scarring effects that people suffered in previous recessions and of ensuring that they have a good part to play in a prosperous future. The guarantee that no person under 24 years old will have to go any longer than six months before they obtain a job and training is very important, as is the future jobs fund. I know that my hon. Friend is strongly committed to that measure, which is important in her constituency and her region, and I hope that it will be raised in the Budget debate.

Mark Lancaster: May we have a debate about community health services and the undue haste with which the Government are attempting to force through changes before the general election? Milton Keynes council has been given just 12 days to decide whether it wishes to be a provider. Given the impact of the changes on vulnerable people in my constituency, why are we forcing them through so quickly? They are complex issues, so can we not have more time?

Harriet Harman: On the time scale of the consultation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I shall ask the Secretary of State for Health to write to him and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

Gwyn Prosser: Dover Harbour Board's plans to sell off the port of Dover to the highest bidder have been thrown into chaos and confusion this morning, following the announcement by P&O and the other major port operators that the board may have been misappropriating revenue funds, and that T2, the new terminal, might not go ahead. Will the Leader of the House consider an urgent debate about the issue so that we can look at the most inappropriate and improper present and past actions of the port of Dover, which only last year laid off 200 workers and privatised their jobs?

Harriet Harman: I know that my hon. Friend, as a real champion of his constituents and, particularly, the Dover port and all the people who work there and whose jobs depend on it, has close contact with the relevant Ministers, but I shall ensure that I, too, draw the issue to their attention. Perhaps they could have a meeting with him at this particularly important point.

Alistair Carmichael: The Leader of the House missed an excellent 30-minute debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, which was called by her hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood), about the Royal Bank of Scotland's lending practices. Attendance was good for a short debate, and that is clear evidence of the need for a bigger debate in this Chamber, so that Members can question Treasury Ministers about how those banks, for which we have paid, can be made to work for our communities and constituents.

Harriet Harman: One reason why we ensured that we had lending agreements with banks was that it was very important for banks to lend out into the economy, to individuals for mortgages and to businesses. More money is being lent. The reason why the overall lending figures appear to be lower is that more money is being paid back, so the net lending figure is smaller than the gross lending figure. That is a good sign, and it has come about because interest rates are still low. However, we keep a hawk eye on the lending practices of the banks. They are there not to pay bonuses to the fat cats at the top, but to lend out to businesses and the housing market, which needs finance.

David Winnick: When the debate takes place next Thursday about the annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, will my right hon. and learned Friend try to persuade whoever is the Minister to give us information arising from the speech of the former director-general of MI5? When was any protest made to the United States about the torture carried out by that country? When did MI5 officers know? Although I may be the only Member interested in the subject, I believe it crucial that Members of Parliament know precisely what went on, bearing in mind the speech made by the former director-general of that organisation.

Harriet Harman: The sentiments that my hon. Friend raises are shared by many hon. Members. All of us are concerned and, rightly, the Government's position is that we totally abhor the use of torture. We would never condone or support its use by our security services, and we would never condone or support its use by anybody else. The very points that my hon. Friend makes were raised at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, and the Prime Minister answered them.

Malcolm Moss: May we have an early debate about the role, performance and policies of the Driving Standards Agency? It has already closed more than 60 local test centres, and another 45 closures are in the pipeline. May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1002 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main)?
	 [ That this House notes that, following the introduction of a new motorcycle test on 27 April 2009, Driving Standards Agency figures show that 50,000 fewer people took the motorcycle test in the period to 31 January 2010 than in the same period in 2008; further notes that 45 learners crashed attempting the new test during its first nine weeks, resulting in 12 hospitalisations; further notes that the majority of crashes occurred during the new swerve and stop exercise, which has been combined into one exercise in Module One of the new test; further notes that this is not obligatory under the European directive which prompted the introduction of the new test; further notes that the new test has resulted in a reduction in test centres, requiring longer journeys for inexperienced riders to access test facilities; is concerned that inaction to tackle this lack of test centres and combined swerve and stop exercise could lead to a decline in the overall number of motorcyclists and the motorcycle industry as a whole; congratulates Motorcycle News and the Motorcycle Action Group on their campaign to have these issues addressed; and calls on the Government to consider separating the two elements of the swerve and stop exercise and to investigate how the availability of test centres could be addressed. ]
	 The policy of closing local test centres is putting hundreds of thousands of extra car miles on the road, and the new centres that are down for motorcycle testing are costing a fortune.

Harriet Harman: There will be Transport questions next Thursday. The hon. Gentleman could raise his question with Transport Ministers then.

Ann Cryer: May we have an early debate about the safety and security of children who are taken to Pakistan for family holidays? May we also consider the damage caused to their education when they are removed from school during term time?

Harriet Harman: All hon. Members will hope for the very speedy return of the young lad of five who has been abducted in Pakistan. My hon. Friend has long campaigned for the safety of children in her constituency who were born abroad, and I shall consider the relevant Minister with whom to raise that issue.

Christopher Fraser: Representatives of the care home industry have told me of the regulatory difficulties that they face, which get in the way of prioritising care for those people who, in the words of the Leader of the House, are not wellderly. Those representatives criticise the Government and say that they could do more to help. In light of that, and because of the debate about the future care of those non-wellderly people, will the Leader of the House, as a priority, bring the matter forward for a debate before the general election?

Harriet Harman: It is very important that we have really tough regulation for private residential care homes. I can remember when there was almost no regulation at all, and we had to bring it in to protect people. There were protests from Conservatives, saying that it was red tape, but protecting vulnerable people in residential care is an absolute priority and we want to ensure that the regulations do that proportionately and effectively.

Tom Watson: May I reinforce the concerns of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), about the Digital Economy Bill? It contains fiendishly complex copyright infringement measures that will have lasting repercussions, and I cannot be the only hon. Member who is concerned that to deal with it in a wash-up would be bad form at best.

Harriet Harman: I know that my hon. Friend has put a lot of effort into, and is extremely knowledgeable about, all these issues. We want to ensure that we have fast-speed broadband in all parts of the country that can be accessed by business and individuals, and that we have a modernised copyright system. I will report his views to the Ministers responsible.

Douglas Hogg: Can the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister opens Monday's defence debate from the Dispatch Box? It is now quite plain that the Government committed British forces to two wars without adequate funding. As a result, necessary equipment was lacking, particularly helicopters, armed vehicles, bomb detection kits and body armour. As a consequence of that lack, service personnel have died. The Prime Minister has a responsibility for that and needs to be brought to book in that debate.

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister gave evidence to Chilcot last week. He answers questions every week in the House of Commons. He is strongly committed to supporting the armed forces, and always has been. There will be a defence debate on Monday, and it will be opened by the Minister who is assigned by the Government to do that.

Jim Sheridan: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, as will my right hon. and learned Friend, of the excellent event that took place a few months ago when we invited youths from all over the country to come and sit in this place. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore accommodate some of our elderly folk to enable them to come here and organise a similar event in this House, so that we can get the views of some of our "wellderly" people on the issues that matter to them?

Harriet Harman: We could take further the very good precedent that was set by the UK Youth Parliament when, at a time when this House was not sitting, we allowed it to be here. All the Benches were absolutely packed, with half young men and half young women, and a great many wheelchair users; it was ethnically diverse and it was a fantastic debate. I think that we could do more of that. Perhaps the next thing that we could do would be to have the National Pensioners Convention here, with pensioners and retired people from all over the country coming to sit and debate and have their voices heard in this Parliament. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this; it is an exceptionally good idea, and I sense a great deal of support for it.

Christopher Chope: May we have an early debate on the inadequacies of the UK Border Agency? Last week, one of my constituents complained to the agency; he was effectively doing a whistleblowing job on some illegal immigrants-people who had overstayed and were working illegally. He had an appointment with the agency that was then cancelled, and it said that it was indifferent to his concerns. Surely this is thoroughly unsatisfactory. People should be encouraged to blow the whistle on illegal immigrants, rather than not.

Harriet Harman: Yes, I think that people should be encouraged to give information if they think that illegal activity is going on. I ask the hon. Gentleman to write to the relevant Minister. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Minister so that we can ensure that they are looked into. If he will provide the information, it is not too late for the matter to be taken up. Nobody wants information that is given by people in good faith not to be acted on.

Rob Marris: Hypocrisy-the "do as I say, not as I do" approach-annoys the electorate. Covered bicycle racks in the courtyard outside the Members' Cloakroom have been removed and replaced with parking for Ministers' cars. All winter, Ministers' lovely hybrid cars have frequently been parked in the courtyard outside your house, Mr. Speaker, with their petrol engines running, presumably to keep the chauffeurs warm. May I make my annual plea to the Leader of the House for the provision of a warm room in which chauffeurs can wait, to avoid these unnecessary CO2 emissions?

Harriet Harman: Probably the best people for my hon. Friend to raise that with are the Transport Ministers, who will be answering questions from this Dispatch Box next Monday.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Leader of the House accept that it makes complete nonsense of the role and responsibilities of this House for large tranches of important public Bills to go through to the other House without being adequately debated in this House? Does she further accept that one way to stop this stupid practice is to change Standing Orders to prevent guillotines-programme motions-on the remaining stages of legislation in this House?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman is very concerned about this, but his concerns have been addressed. He has been part of the argument that there should be a House business Committee that can deal with some of these issues. In the next Parliament, which he will not be in, these matters will be done differently, and I hope that the situation will be improved.

Derek Twigg: May we have an early debate on the issue of hospital waiting lists, so that we can examine why waiting times have reduced from more than 18 months in 1997 to less than 18 weeks today? It is particularly important to examine what we could do to bring waiting lists down further.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend looks back at the situation that there used to be in relation to hospital waiting lists. We should always remember that setting a target for bringing down hospital waiting lists has really made a difference. The Opposition decried targets; they may well have felt that if their constituents needed to get an operation, they should simply pay to go private. I can remember my constituents literally weeping in my advice surgeries when they had been told that they would have to wait two years for a hip replacement. This Labour Government's targets mean that people do not have to borrow money from relatives who cannot afford it in order to go private or else have to wait in pain for months and years. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that massive progress has made. We are going to bring in further guarantees so that, for example, people will have to wait only a week before they get referred to a cancer specialist. These issues, too, can be debated in the Budget debates, because they include questions of resourcing.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I refer the Leader of the House to motion 61 on today's Order Paper and take her back to the Wright Committee debates that we had a few days ago? During those exchanges, she agreed with me that there was a need for the Back-Bench business Committee to protect the interests of minority parties as well. May I respectfully ask her to ensure that the Standing Orders that are produced will reflect the need to protect minority party interests, as well as those of everybody else?

Harriet Harman: I will ensure that I send the hon. Gentleman a draft of the Standing Orders before they are tabled in front of the House. We obviously want to ensure that the main parties in the House have their say, but it is very important not to overlook the smaller parties and the independents.

Madeleine Moon: Keeping children safe in an increasingly complex digital world is an issue that should be high on our agenda in this House. I recently held a meeting with Microsoft and CEOP-Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre-ambassadors from South Wales police for parents from across my constituency. Should not this House be debating how we can ensure that Facebook uses the CEOP alert so that children who are afraid or fear that they are being targeted can highlight their concerns directly to CEOP? They are currently unable to do so, and are therefore placed at risk.

Harriet Harman: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that this is the view of Ministers as well, not least the Home Secretary, and action is being taken in this respect. The technology is changing all the time. Compared with just a few years ago, communication among young people has been transformed. We cannot have public policy, or the policy of those in the industry, lagging behind if that means that in the meantime children are at risk. We need swift action on this, and we need to keep it closely under review all the time so that as the technology and methods of communication change, we ensure that protection keeps up to date.

Lembit �pik: For the past seven years, I have been trying to establish how Cheryl James, the daughter of Des and Doreen James, died at Deepcut Army barracks in 1995. So far, my efforts have basically failed. I failed to get disclosure of key facts and reports, and there has been a persistent culture of secrecy and obfuscation. I believe that that is because those facts show that she was murdered. May we have a debate before this Parliament ends to disclose those facts and establish whether I am right or wrong?

Harriet Harman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene in the defence debate on that point. In advance of that debate, perhaps he could tell the Minister responsible which issues he would like addressed, so that the Minister has been put on notice and knows that he needs to respond to the hon. Gentleman's points.

Ian Davidson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to have a debate in the near future on the latest political utterances from Lord Guthrie, particularly the ones in which he has called for the scrapping of the aircraft carrier contracts-views that I understand are shared by the Opposition?

Harriet Harman: Those are among the many issues that will be debated in Monday's defence debate, and we recognise that the question of procurement is very important for our industry. We are very proud of the skills base that has been able to be part of that procurement programme.

Philip Hollobone: According to the Campaign to Protect Rural England, 48 per cent. of people admit to dropping litter, one third of drivers admit to throwing litter while they are driving along the road and littering has increased by five times across the country in the past 50 years. May we have a debate in Government time about littering and its antisocial effects?

Harriet Harman: Perhaps that is something that other hon. Members would also like to debate, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman could seek an opportunity to debate it in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment.

Stephen Ladyman: May we have a debate about the bidding war that is currently going on between the Government and the Conservative Front Benchers over who can set the highest standards for secondary school results and tackle the issue of secondary attainment? It would give me an opportunity to point out that in my constituency, I have seen secondary standards transformed in recent years. For the first time on the poorest estates in my constituency, I am meeting kids who talk about becoming doctors, scientists or even, heaven help them, lawyers. The problem that their schools face is that they have to climb a mountain caused by Kent's selective system of education. If we are going to set thresholds for schools, that problem has to be tackled, and so far neither side is doing so.

Harriet Harman: There is not a bidding war in relation to educational standards, because we won that war long ago through, as my hon. Friend says, the massive improvement shown not only in secondary school results but in the massive increase in the number of young people going into further and higher education. In my constituency, the number of such young people, most of them from families in which they are the first generation to go into further or higher education, has more than doubled. We will continue our commitment to education both at school level and in HE.

Evan Harris: As a member of the Wright Committee, I welcome what the Leader of the House has said about circulating a draft of the appropriate Standing Order and her declared intention to bring it forward. However, given that the historic votes last Thursday were overwhelming on everything that the Wright Committee proposed, and even on some proposals that went further than what the Committee proposed-in the case of the Back-Bench business Committee, it went against her advice and that of the shadow Leader of the House-does she agree that she would be well advised to accept the recommendation on a Back-Bench business Committee in motion 61, which was agreed nem com in the Committee, unless there are simply drafting problems with it? Does she also recognise that there may still be opposition, and that she therefore cannot rely on remaining orders approval to get the matter through?

Harriet Harman: People were sceptical about our trying to proceed on the basis of remaining orders on that first Monday, but out of 16 motions in the remaining orders of the day, 11 went through, so that has been tried and tested. The question is not what I supported, what the shadow Leader of the House supported or what we both supported; what matters is what the House decided. The Standing Orders that I will bring forward in draft and consult the hon. Gentleman about will be to bring into effect the will of the House, not to create fresh policy that is either ahead of what the House decided or behind it. They will put into effect what the House has decided, so remaining orders of the day are exactly the way to deal with them.

David Drew: My right hon. and learned Friend has said on a number of occasions that there will be a debate on Afghanistan with a substantive vote. When is that likely to take place?

Harriet Harman: I do not think I put it in those terms. I think I said that Ministers, from the Prime Minister to the Defence Secretary, the International Development Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, were concerned to ensure that the House is kept fully up to date with Government action and is able to hold the Government to account, and that we have regular debates so that Members can air their views. Indeed, there will be a further opportunity to raise these issues on Monday in the defence debate.

Clive Efford: May we have a debate on today's report published by the chief inspector of constabulary, Denis O'Connor, which highlights the fact that very low-level crime has an impact on people's attitudes to their local police force? My experience is that our safer neighbourhood teams want to tackle that sort of crime, but quite often response teams are not aware of the history and do not prioritise such crime. Sometimes they do not even turn up. That debate would also offer us the opportunity to highlight the fact that our safer neighbourhood teams in London face being cut by the Mayor.

Harriet Harman: The safer neighbourhood teams in London are massively valued by my hon. Friend's constituents and those of all London Members. We are strongly committed to them and are very concerned indeed that the Mayor does not understand how important they are to local communities.

Rob Marris: The Conservative Mayor.

Harriet Harman: The Conservative Mayor, as my hon. Friend rightly points out.
	On antisocial behaviour, it was this Government who identified that it was something that should concern the police and local councils, working together with local communities. We have taken forward the whole antisocial behaviour order regime and we need to improve it so that it really responds to people's concerns, most recently about dogs. I look forward to the fact that the ASBO can be joined by the DOGBO.

Andrew Slaughter: I returned with a delegation from Gaza earlier this week. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that while waiting to be called, I have learned that the British journalist Paul Martin, who has been held in custody for several weeks, has today been released following a meeting with the Justice Minister by the delegation last Sunday. I think we would all welcome that move.
	In Gaza, I observed the effect of four years of the blockade by the Israeli occupation forces. It is clear that the occupiers' tactic is working, in that isolating the Palestinian population is hiding their collective punishment from the outside world. May I echo what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) said and welcome the Leader of the House's saying that there would be a debate on the situation in Gaza before Dissolution?

Harriet Harman: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on their efforts in respect of the journalist who was being held. Perhaps he will find an opportunity to debate these issues in the Budget debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful for the co-operation of colleagues, which has enabled me to accommodate everyone who wished to take part.

High Speed Rail

Sadiq Khan: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat a statement that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a few minutes ago about high speed rail between London and the major cities of the midlands, the north and Scotland.
	Travel and trade between Britain's major population and economic centres are the lifeblood of our economy and society. They require transport networks that are high-capacity, efficient and sustainable. As we grow wealthier as a nation, so we travel more and move more freight. Nineteenth-century Britain led the world in the development of railways. Serious planning for a national motorway network was begun by the War Cabinet in 1943, and the major motorways were all opened over a 32-year period between 1959 and the completion of the M40 in 1991.
	Since the 1990s, increases in demand have been accommodated largely by improving existing roads and rail networks, including through motorway widening and the £9 billion upgrade of the west coast main line. The £6 billion roads programme includes investment for the five years to 2014 in widening a large part of the M25 and the extension of hard-shoulder running across the most heavily used stretches of motorway. We are also progressing with plans to electrify the Great Western main line from London to Bristol and south Wales, and with a £250 million investment in the strategic freight network.
	Our preliminary assessment, published last January, was that substantial additional transport capacity would be needed from the 2020s between our major cities, starting with London to the west midlands, Britain's two largest conurbations. By then, the west coast main line will be full. By 2033, the average long-distance west coast main line train is projected to be 80 per cent. full, with routine very severe overcrowding for much of the time; and there will also be a significant increase in traffic and congestion on the motorways between and around London, Birmingham and Manchester.
	The Government's view is that high speed rail could be the most efficient and sustainable way to provide more capacity between those conurbations, so last January we set up a company, High Speed Two Ltd, to analyse the business case for a high speed rail line, initially between London and the west midlands; to make detailed route proposals for that first stretch of line should the Government decide to proceed; and to outline options for extensions to cities further north and to Scotland.
	HS2 Ltd reported to me in December, and I am grateful for the immense amount of expert work done by its staff. HS2 Ltd has shared much of its work and analysis with the local authorities that could be affected, Transport for London, the Scottish Executive and statutory environmental bodies. I am grateful to them all for their constructive engagement.
	I am today publishing HS2 Ltd's report together with the Government's proposed high speed rail strategy, which is based on HS2 Ltd's analysis. In summary, the strategy is for the development of an initial core high speed network that would link London to Birmingham, Manchester, the east midlands, Sheffield and Leeds, with high speed trains running from the outset through to Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh. That Y-shaped network of about 335 miles in total, with branches north of Birmingham running either side of the Pennines, would be capable of carrying trains at up to 250 mph and could be extended to other cities and to Scotland.
	There are six principal reasons why the Government are proposing this strategy, the first of which is transport capacity. The extra capacity provided by a high speed line would more than treble existing rail capacity on the west coast main line corridor. That is not only because of the new track, but because of the far greater length of train that high speed lines and stations make possible, and the segregation of high speed trains from other passenger and freight services.
	By contrast, the most ambitious conceivable upgrade of existing rail lines to Birmingham would yield less than half that extra capacity, at greater cost-in terms of both money and disruption-than a high speed line, and without most of the journey- time savings. That analysis is critical to the argument on whether investment in high speed rail unjustifiably diverts investment from the existing railway. The most likely alternative over time is to spend more achieving less. That accords with the experience of the recent £9 billion upgrade of the west coast main line, the benefits of which, although considerable, were essentially incremental and came after years of chronic disruption to passengers and businesses.
	Furthermore, by transferring long-distance services to the high speed line, large amounts of capacity would also be released on the existing west coast main line for commuter and freight services, including services to key areas of housing growth around Milton Keynes and Northampton.
	Secondly, the journey-time savings from such a line would be significant. The journey time from London to the west midlands would be reduced to between 30 and 50 minutes, depending on the stations used, with Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield all brought to within 75 minutes of London, down from almost 2 hours 10 minutes now. Through services from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London would be down to just three and a half hours.
	However, thirdly, the connectivity gains of high speed rail come not only from the faster trains, but from the new route alignments that comprise the proposed Y-shaped network of lines from London to Birmingham, and then north to Manchester, and north-east to the east midlands, Sheffield and Leeds. That new network would provide a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to overcome the acute connectivity limitations of the Victorian rail network, with its three separate and poorly interconnected main lines from London to the north, each with its own separate London terminus.
	By contrast the high speed line, routed via the west midlands, would not only slash the journey time to London from Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, but nearly halve journey times from those cities to Birmingham, so the east midlands, the north-west and the north-east gain dramatically improved connections within the midlands and the north, as well as to London. Those connections would be further enhanced by the northern hub proposals to upgrade the trans-Pennine route from Manchester to Leeds.
	Fourthly, the high speed network would enable key local, national and international networks to be better integrated. In particular, by including on the approach of the high speed line to central London an interchange station with the new Crossrail line just west of Paddington, the benefits of both Crossrail and the high speed line are greatly enhanced. Such a Crossrail interchange station would deliver a fast and frequent service to London's west end, the City and docklands, giving, for example, total journey times from central Birmingham to Canary Wharf of just 70 minutes, and from Leeds to Canary Wharf of just 1 hour 40 minutes. That Crossrail interchange would also provide a fast, one-stop Heathrow Express service to Heathrow, in place of the long and tortuous journey to the airport currently experienced by passengers arriving at Euston, Kings Cross and St. Pancreas. Similarly, an interchange station close to Birmingham airport would provide an efficient link to the M6 and M42, the west coast main line, the wider west midlands and the airport itself.
	Fifthly, high speed rail would be a sustainable way forward. High speed trains emit far less carbon than cars or planes per passenger mile, and the local impact of high speed lines is far less than that of entirely new motorway alignments in terms of land take and air quality. For those reasons, the Government take the view that high speed rail is preferable both to new inter-city motorways, and to major expansion of domestic aviation, even if those were able to deliver equivalent inter-city capacity and connectivity benefits.
	Finally, HS2 Ltd assesses that all those benefits far outweigh the estimated costs. With the project yielding more than £2 of benefit for every £1 of cost, HS2 Ltd estimates the capital cost of the first 120 miles of the line from London to the west midlands at between £15.8 billion and £17.4 billion. That is broadly similar to the cost of Crossrail, which is being built over the next seven years. The cost per mile beyond Birmingham is then estimated to halve, taking the overall cost of the 335 mile Y-shaped network to about £30 billion. That cost would be phased over more than a decade after the start of construction, which would not begin until after the completion of Crossrail in 2017. Indeed, the high speed line would be the transport infrastructure successor project to Crossrail, deploying its skill base and project management expertise, and with a similar annual rate of spend.
	I now turn to the specifics of the recommended route. As with any major infrastructure project, there will need to be extensive and detailed consultation, particularly with the local communities affected. Significant time will be needed to ensure that that consultation is properly conducted and considered before the finalisation of Government policy and the introduction of a hybrid Bill. Subject to that consultation, the London terminus for the high speed line would be Euston; the Birmingham city centre station would be at Curzon street; and there would be interchange stations with Crossrail west of Paddington and near Birmingham airport.
	HS2 Ltd's recommended line of route between London and Birmingham is also published today. The Government endorse that route, subject to further work on mitigation that I have commissioned, and to subsequent public consultation. HS2 Ltd's recommended route would pass in tunnel from Euston to the Crossrail interchange west of Paddington, and leave London via the Ruislip area, making use of an existing rail corridor. It would then pass by Amersham in tunnel towards Aylesbury, before following the route of the A413 past Wendover.
	North of the Chilterns, the recommended route would follow in part the disused Great Central rail alignment before passing Brackley and entering Warwickshire. It would then skirt to the east of Birmingham, to enter the city via a short link alongside an existing rail line beginning in the Water Orton area, with the main line extending north to the west coast main line near Lichfield.
	In developing its route, HS2 Ltd has been very conscious of the need to minimise the local impacts while achieving the wider objectives of the high speed line. The company will be publishing a full appraisal of sustainability, including noise and landscape impacts, before formal consultation begins, and I am today publishing details of a proposed exceptional hardship scheme for those whose properties may be directly affected. I would like to assure the House that only once full public consultation on the Government's proposed strategy and recommended route is complete, and its results fully appraised, will the Government make firm decisions.
	I turn now to the issue of Heathrow. It is important that Heathrow be connected to any high speed line. A prime purpose of the proposed Crossrail interchange is to provide such a connection, via an 11-minute direct service to Heathrow. However, the overwhelming majority of passengers on a high speed line south of Birmingham would be going to or from London, which is the other reason why the Crossrail interchange station is so important. Crossrail, which is a very high capacity line, will provide fast services direct to the west end, the City and docklands, catering for an estimated one third of all the passengers travelling on the high speed line. Without this interchange to Crossrail, congestion on the tube from Euston would be exacerbated, and passengers would be severely disadvantaged in getting in and through central London.
	The question is whether there is a case for an additional station at the site of Heathrow itself. HS2 Ltd, after thorough analysis, advises that the business case for such an additional station appears weak, given the estimated cost of at least £2 billion for the additional tunnelling required to serve the site. Furthermore, Heathrow is not a single place; it is an airport with three widely dispersed terminal centres.
	I am conscious, however, that, as foreshadowed in the Government's January 2009 decision on adding capacity at Heathrow, there may be a strategic case for a high speed station at Heathrow, particularly in the light of that planned expansion. I have therefore appointed Lord Mawhinney, a former Transport Secretary, to advise on the best way forward, having fully engaged with all interested parties. A complex decision of this nature should not be taken in a knee-jerk fashion, but after a full analysis of the facts and options.
	There are many other benefits of a high speed project. An estimated 10,000 jobs would be created, with benefits too for UK companies competing abroad. Regional economic growth and regeneration would also be boosted, with released capacity on the west coast main line supporting housing growth. All this is set out in the Command Paper I am publishing today and laying in the Libraries of both Houses.
	High speed rail is a long-term strategic project to equip Britain with the transport infrastructure it needs to flourish in the 21st century. Now, as we emerge from recession, is the right time to be planning. The Government's view is that high speed rail could play a crucial role not only in meeting reasonable future transport capacity requirements, but in transforming the connectivity between our major cities, regions and economic centres. It could help to boost the economies of the midlands and the north in particular; help to overcome the historic north-south divide; strengthen the ties that bind Scotland and England; and, through connecting to the channel tunnel and High Speed 1, reinforce our links with the European mainland where high speed rail networks already extend from the north of France to the south of Spain and Italy, and to the east of Germany.
	High speed rail is a policy of huge strategic significance for the country. The time has come to create a credible plan, and for this to be a national cause. This is the spirit in which I set out today's proposals, and I commend them to the House.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the Minister for advanced sight of the statement.
	Less than three years ago, the then Secretary of State for Transport stood at the Dispatch box and presented a 30-year strategy for the railways that had no place for high speed rail. The Conservative party refused to accept that because we believe it is vital to start catching up with the high speed revolution on which much of the rest of Europe embarked more than a generation ago. The Conservative party totally transformed the debate with our promise to build a north-south high speed rail line as the first step towards the creation of a national network connecting major cities across England, Scotland and Wales.
	Ever since then, the Government have been running to catch up with the lead we have set and the momentum we have generated. So we welcomed Labour's change of heart on high speed rail with their establishment of HS2, but we made it clear that we regretted the fact that the remit they gave to HS2 lacked ambition and focused only on the west midlands as stage 1, whereas we want to go further and faster with our guaranteed, costed and timetabled commitment to take high speed rail to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds-as that crucial first step to a national network. The second step should, of course, be a connection with Scotland.
	We need to test Labour's last-minute conversion to high speed rail with some searching questions. Will they match our commitment to start work immediately on taking the line beyond Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds, as part of stage 1? Will they set a timetable, as we have done, for delivering a line to the north? Why will they not match our commitment to start construction by 2015? What guarantees can they give that fares will be kept within the reach of ordinary families on modest incomes? Will they match our promise to review the blight rules to see whether we can do more to help those affected by whichever route is ultimately chosen? And will they guarantee that the communities affected will have the chance to make their voices heard?
	Let me make it clear that we are not prepared blindly to accept the route that Labour propose, and let me also say that when it comes to Heathrow, Labour still does not get it. If we are to get the full environmental benefits of high speed rail, it is crucial that we make it as easy as possible for people to switch from the plane to the train, with the carbon benefits involved. It was a major setback when HS2's chairman confirmed that modal shift from air was not to be a key objective in its report. Now we know that the closest HS2's proposals will get to Heathrow is about 10 miles away, at Old Oak Common.
	Although we do not rule out use of that site for dispersal, the idea that some kind of Wormwood Scrubs international station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible. It is bizarre that the party elected on a mantra of delivering an integrated transport system is proposing to leave our most important airport out of an upgrade to our transport network that, under Conservative plans, would become the most important for half a century.
	At the eleventh hour, however, we have the promise that the Government will think again about the points we have been making for years about the importance of integrating Heathrow with high speed rail. We therefore welcome their decision to appoint Lord Mawhinney to try to find a solution that will command the cross-party consensus we all want.
	Although the Conservative party is part of the growing consensus backing high speed rail, we are adamant that Britain's high speed solution must be the right one for the environment and for the economy. In leaving out Heathrow and setting out plans that do not give costed, timetabled and watertight guarantees to take the line north of the midlands, Labour's plans are flawed, lack credibility and are undermined by their inability to grasp the basic truth: that high speed rail should be an alternative, not an addition, to a third runway.
	The decisions we make now will have a profound impact on our transport system for generations to come, and I can assure the House that a Conservative Government would have the energy, leadership and values to deliver high speed rail's full potential for this country.

Sadiq Khan: I find that incredible! I am shocked by the hon. Lady's response. If ever evidence was required of why that lot are unfit to form a Government, she has provided it. Last Sunday, her leader boasted that he is proud to be a salesman. This is the same person who, at the same time as ending the cold war, so he claimed, was planning high speed rail.
	Let us be clear: on the one hand, the hon. Lady says that she wants work to begin immediately, which is confirmation-if it is required-that the Conservatives' plans and route are written on the back of an envelope. That route is: London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. They want to begin construction work in 2015, but they also claim to want to consult. How can they consult as fully as possible with the people affected, follow the guidelines and advice and go through a hybrid Bill-and still start construction work in 2015? They claim to have done the work, but most of the costs will come when construction begins, whether in 2015 or-as we plan-2017. It is quite remarkable that the hon. Lady is asking us to accept 2015 as an ideal start date for any construction, when chapter 5 of the High Speed 2 Ltd report gives a detailed explanation of the work that needs to take place between now and the beginning of any construction.
	The hon. Lady also raised the issue of Heathrow. It beggars belief that she has not understood what the people who looked into the report said-I have the evidence here, and it is slightly thicker than the back of an envelope-in working out the value-for-money case for a station at Heathrow, bearing it in mind that most people in London, as well as most people coming into London from Birmingham or elsewhere north of the capital, do not want to be delayed by going to Heathrow. She completely rules out the possibility of an interchange station to the west of Paddington at Old Oak Common, at the same time that Hammersmith and Fulham, and Ealing councils are lobbying for an interchange station there. She says that there should be an interchange at Heathrow airport, and goes on to say that this is the most important priority for her party-

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I interrupt the Minister of State for a moment? This has been a most curious exchange so far. First, the statement was a bit on the long side, although it was highly informative to the House, and I am sure that hon. Members appreciated that. Secondly, rather unusually, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) did not pose any questions in her response, which is the norm- [ Interruption. ] Order. She responded as she thought fit, and I was happy to allow that, but there did not seem to be a series of questions, which is the proper way to proceed in these matters. I fear that the Minister of State is now following suit and devoting quite a considerable amount of time to a dissection of the Opposition's policy as he sees it, but I know that he will now return posthaste to the Government's policy.

Sadiq Khan: I said that I was surprised by the response of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), and I will end with a question: are this lot fit to form a Government?

Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for today's welcome statement. Britain has trailed behind Europe for a long time on high speed rail. I also very much welcome the fact that something for which we have been calling for years-long before the Conservatives, while they were still winning the cold war-has finally been brought forward by the Government. Can the Minister confirm that the Government's high speed rail scheme will provide extra capacity for the railways, enable modal shift from air, and help economic development in the regions? Will he also confirm that it will be very popular, as I think it will be, given the enormous response to the Javelin trains in the south-east?
	I acknowledge the cross-party attempts by the Secretary of State to involve all parties in the House in a constructive dialogue on the issue and to make it a national project. I thank the Minister for the access I have had to HS2 and for the private briefing the Secretary of State gave me a few weeks ago, which for some reason the Conservatives apparently rejected. Does the Minister agree that we are talking about a matter of national importance that requires consensus in the House, and that all parties ought to approach it in that way? Does he therefore share my concern at the Conservatives' attempt to create a kind of synthetic candy-floss row, rather than trying to move forward in a sensible, constructive way? They appear to be putting short-term politics before the long-term interests of the country, which brings into question their commitment to high speed rail.
	Will the Minister acknowledge that funding is a difficult issue, given the current state of the public finances? Will he consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the Lib Dem shadow Chancellor-the construction of a national infrastructure bank, perhaps using pension funds, which will help to guarantee stability in the funding for such major national projects? Does the Minister also agree that it is important when such projects are under way that there should be no cuts in existing rail budgets that are designed to promote the network in other ways for passengers? Will he give an undertaking-as my party will, and as all parties should-that other rail budgets will not be raided to pay for high speed rail?
	I congratulate HS2 on producing a route that, I think, minimises environmental damage while maximising the usefulness of the line. Obviously the route is a matter for consultation, but what we have now is a useful start for consultation purposes. Can the Minister also confirm that there is a long-term commitment to get to Scotland, and not simply with high speed trains on conventional lines but with a high speed network? Does he have any idea when that will feature in the time scale of the current project?
	Will the Minister say something about the link between HS2 and HS1, which he referred to obliquely in his statement? It is important that people should be able to get to Paris and Brussels directly from Manchester and Birmingham, without having to change in London. Lastly, does he accept that if the route goes through Heathrow, there will be a 15-minute penalty for those coming to London from Birmingham or Manchester, which would be severely disadvantageous for the economics of high speed rail?

Sadiq Khan: That is how you do it, Mr. Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that having 1,100 passengers in 400-metre trains will not only lead to more passengers being able to use high speed trains, but release capacity on the west coast main line to start with, and, when the line goes to Leeds, on the east coast and midland main lines. That increase in capacity will help the housing growth channels north of London, too.
	As for modal shifts, the figure for those who will shift from domestic aviation to high speed rail is between 8 and 11 per cent. There will also be a shift of 57 per cent. from conventional rail to high speed rail, which deals with the hon. Gentleman's capacity point as well.
	The hon. Gentleman was also right to ask about the benefits of high speed rail to the regions. All the evidence-he has been through the HS2 report-is that it will regenerate parts of the country. There is evidence from parts of France that have benefited from high speed connections, such as Lille and elsewhere.
	The hon. Gentleman also paid tribute to the work that High Speed 2 Ltd has done in engaging with stakeholders; let me join him in that. He mentioned that he spoke to HS2 Ltd and met the Secretary of State to discuss the plans and proposals. I am sure he will be disappointed that the cross-party consensus broke down recently, and that there seems to be an attempt, in the lead-up to a general election, to create artificial dividing lines that should not be there.
	The hon. Gentleman was also right to ask me about the history of high speed rail in the UK. What he was alluding to, I think, was the fact that when other European countries were building high speed trains, the Government in this country were distracted from doing so because of their ideological obsession with privatising the trains.
	The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about funding. All options are being considered. One option, which he will be interested in, is to work with Infrastructure UK to try to reduce the costs. As he knows, construction in the UK tends to be more expensive than in Europe. Why is this? We need to change that and ensure that the costs are reduced.
	The final two points the hon. Gentleman made are very important. He asked about Scotland. He will be pleased to know that, in the first instance, high speed trains will connect with existing conventional lines, so that journey times from Glasgow and Edinburgh will be reduced by half an hour from the first phase of HS2. He will also be interested to know that the HS2 Ltd report talks about the benefits of the high speed line going up to Scotland and other parts of the country.
	The hon. Gentleman's final point was about international connections, which are important. Our interest, as I referred to in my long statement, Mr. Speaker, is in connecting HS2 with HS1, and connecting them with Europe. We have asked HS2 to look into the possibility of connecting Euston with King's Cross St. Pancras, and we hope to report back later on how we can do that cost-effectively.

Louise Ellman: I am delighted that the vision that the Select Committee on Transport called for is now being translated into reality, but when does my right hon. Friend expect the economic regeneration that, together with the northern hub, is at the heart of his proposals to become a reality?

Sadiq Khan: The HS2 report sets out a timetable for the next few stages, with the formal consultation to begin in the autumn and construction to begin in 2017. I suspect that those considering investing in various parts of the country will see that a high speed line is coming and will start investing now, so we could see some benefits sooner than we would otherwise expect. May I also thank the Transport Committee for its vision?

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. No fewer than 26 right hon. and hon. Members are trying to contribute on this extremely important matter, so short questions and short answers are required if a large number of Members are not to be disappointed.

David Lidington: The Minister will appreciate that for many of my constituents, today's statement will come as a pretty devastating blow. What, therefore, in his view, are the environmental benefits of the scheme that will outweigh the environmental costs both of driving a new railway very close to the homes of many hundreds of my constituents-in Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville-and of destroying countryside that successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, have designated as of outstanding national importance?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We have asked HS2 Ltd to look into what further mitigation can be done. It will be no comfort to those of his constituents who will be affected, but about 50 per cent. of the High Speed 2 line will use or be sited next to existing or disused rail lines, or be sited in existing transport corridors. We need to minimise the disruption caused to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and we are carrying out as much consultation as we possibly can to mitigate the damage caused. That includes having meetings now, before the formal consultation begins, to see how we can address some of the serious, legitimate concerns that are being raised.

Frank Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever the merits of the proposal as presently drafted, the choice of the Euston terminus would have a devastating impact on my constituents? The railway engineers would treat it as though it were a greenfield site, but greenfield it is not. Does he acknowledge that the present proposals would involve six or seven blocks of affordable housing being demolished, and a small park being virtually concreted over? Will he ask the engineers to go back to their computers, and to be more imaginative in getting a lot more of what is needed into the existing curtilage of Euston station, a great deal of which is presently wasted? Will he also bear it in mind that, when the self-same engineers came up with the proposal to put the high speed link from the channel tunnel under King's Cross station, I suggested that they should use St. Pancras? That was a much better idea than the one the engineers came up with.

Sadiq Khan: We are keen to learn the lessons from the channel tunnel experience, and that includes listening to my right hon. Friend's representations, as he often has very sensible ideas. I can give him an assurance that we will ask the engineers to try to rationalise the plans as much as they can. He will appreciate that about 27 sites in London were considered as possible termini for the high speed line, but all the evidence suggested that Euston was the best one. He made a good point when he suggested that more could be done to minimise the disruption to his constituents. He has been an advocate of ensuring that there is minimal disruption, and we will continue to work with him to alleviate some of the concerns he has raised.

Damian Green: My constituents benefit from the existing domestic and international high speed links, but they suffered blight, disturbance and stress during the planning and building phases. May I recommend that the Minister and his successors learn those painful lessons so that individuals and businesses are not left to suffer planning blight for many years, as they did in the past? Will he also ensure that the initial compensation offers to those who are to lose all or part of their property are pitched at a realistic level? If he does those things, it will make a huge long-term difference to the acceptability of the project.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I take on board everything he has said. An example of the lessons that we have learned is that we have started consulting today on an exceptional hardship fund, so that there will be non-statutory as well as statutory blight provisions. We have also set up an inquiry line that people can ring if they have concerns about where the line will go, for example. We have deliberately chosen a preferred route, rather than four or five different routes, which could cause unnecessary concern and blight. There is a huge amount of detail on the website as well, but I take on board everything the hon. Gentleman has said. I hope we have addressed most, if not all, of the concerns and learned the lessons from the previous exercise with High Speed 1.

Eric Martlew: I congratulate the Minister on these excellent proposals, and on rejecting the Conservative proposal for the line to go from Manchester to Leeds, cutting out all of Cumbria and south-west Scotland. Having said that, can we talk about the fork? When they get to the fork, do the Government plan to build both lines at the same time, or one after the other? I suspect that the west coast line is more congested. Also, does he agree that it would be nonsense to run a high speed line 90 miles through Cumbria and not permit it to stop anywhere in that county, especially in Carlisle?

Sadiq Khan: I suspect that whatever answer I give on which line goes first will lose me the support of half the House. That is one of the things HS2 will be looking into when it considers the next phase in relation to Manchester and Leeds. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that other parts of the country will benefit from the project. On having a stop in Carlisle, it is worth pointing out that one of the choices we have to consider is having fewer stops, and therefore faster trains between areas of mass population, which would free up capacity on the trains that do go to Carlisle.

David Tredinnick: There will be real concern in parts of the east midlands such as Hinckley and Leicester that the connections to the new link might not be adequate. If the usage of the west coast main line were to decrease, the usage of the lines that feed into it could also decrease and the lines could possibly close. Can the Minister give me any reassurance on that?

Sadiq Khan: All our forward projections tell us that usage is going to go up on the railways. Capacity is the biggest challenge we will face over the next two or three decades. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will work with him to ensure that his concerns are not realised, and that there is no reduction in conventional rail services as a result of what we hope will be the success of high speed rail.

James Plaskitt: Can my right hon. Friend tell me more about his Department's analysis of the interaction between this proposal and the Department's aviation strategy? The proposal to have a link at Birmingham International could significantly transform the way in which people think about the use of Birmingham airport. That link could also provide a fast link into London. Is he absolutely sure that these plans are consistent with his Department's intentions for Birmingham airport and with its national aviation strategy?

Sadiq Khan: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point. When High Speed 2 Ltd was looking at where the interchanges would go, it also considered any unintended consequences. Its report clearly states that, rather the project fuelling demand for aviation, it will result in a shift from domestic aviation to high speed rail of between 8 and 11 per cent. It will also lead to better journeys for people travelling to airports further away.

John Barrett: I welcome the statement; the project will be good for jobs, for the economy and for the environment. Does the Minister agree, however, that high speed rail really comes into its own for longer journeys? Many people travel from central Scotland to London by air at the moment, with 60 per cent. of the flights from Edinburgh airport going to other UK mainland cities.

Sadiq Khan: At least 10,000 construction jobs will be created, along with a further 2,000 permanent jobs. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the real benefit of high speed rail is felt on the longer journeys, and we are optimistic that people will choose to go on a high speed train that is almost as quick as, and more environmentally friendly than, the alternative options.

Clive Betts: I give an absolute welcome to the proposal for a direct line to Yorkshire through the east midlands. That is great news for Sheffield. May I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)? Will the Minister look carefully at developing sufficient capacity in the rail construction industry so that, come 2017, we shall be able to develop both legs of the Y simultaneously? It would be invidious for cities on either leg to have to wait for the other line to be completed before they could get the benefits of high speed rail.

Sadiq Khan: One of the reasons why it would be daft to begin construction of the high speed rail in 2015, while Crossrail is still under construction, is that we would not be able to use the transferrable skills or build the necessary expertise. One of the advantages of the high speed rail project following on after Crossrail has been finished is that we shall be able to use that expertise and have a sustainable form of work using British expertise. If British companies know that we have made a commitment to high speed rail over the next two or three decades, they will invest in the facilities and skills necessary to ensure that they get the work. All the evidence from High Speed 2 Ltd suggests that British companies will also be able to compete for work overseas when European countries decide to build their high speed lines. Finally, my hon. Friend would not have the high speed route going through his patch if someone else had their plans realised.

Cheryl Gillan: On this side of the House, we have always supported the principle of high speed rail because of the economic benefits it can bring to the United Kingdom. I am glad, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) has reserved our position on the route. My constituents will be as devastated as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) by the announcement today, and by the plans for tunnelling under Amersham, which would cause considerable disruption if they were to go ahead. What assurances can the Minister give me that my constituents, and all the relevant organisations and councils, will be fully engaged and consulted throughout the process? Will he arrange for me to meet the Secretary of State to discuss the plans in more detail?

Sadiq Khan: I am happy to commit my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to a meeting with the hon. Lady. He and I are happy to meet any Member who thinks that their constituency will be affected by the plans. A lot of the tunnelling will be done in order to reduce the devastation that would otherwise arise in areas of outstanding natural beauty. One of the reasons why we could not rush in and start the construction within five years is that we need properly to consult. We need to go through all the hoops and loops to ensure that everyone is consulted, and we are not committing to a route until that consultation has taken place.

Gavin Strang: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement about what might well be our most important transport project this century? Does he agree that it is understandable that we will want high speed trains coming into Edinburgh and Glasgow as soon as practicable? In that context, of course we accept that the first line will have to start at London and move north, but will the Minister do all he can to help us achieve what we want? It is a little bit of a disappointment-not a major issue-that he is still talking in terms of moving on to the conventional track before the high speed link to Edinburgh and Glasgow is built.

Sadiq Khan: My right hon. Friend knows a lot about this, as in 1997 he had to pick up some of the pieces of privatisation. He is right to suggest that we want to go forwards as soon as possible to allow our colleagues in Scotland to have a high speed link. The initial intention is for the first phase of high speed to be connected to conventional railways. The intention-High Speed Two Ltd is quite clear about this-is to have high speed lines going to Scotland, and indeed Wales, as soon as that is practical.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister of State missed the very important point made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about the potential for high speed rail to divert funds from the rest of the regional rail network. Will the Minister address that point head on, and comment specifically on the south-west, which he did not mention at all, and its need for electrification and dual tracking? It would be a pity if those projects were put at risk, as they represent only a small sum, relatively speaking, of the budget he has discussed today.

Sadiq Khan: I give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he needs-that if this party forms the next Government, we will make sure that the promises we have made to electrify those lines will carry on.

Richard Burden: This announcement is really good news for the west midlands. The creation of a new station at Curzon Street will be an excellent gateway to the region, while an additional interchange close to Birmingham airport will help to establish the west midlands as the beating heart of England on the international stage. Given that short-term political games are now being played with this project by the official Opposition, what can we do to ensure that political consensus and confidence in the scheme are not jeopardised by those Conservative games?

Sadiq Khan: What I advise my hon. Friend to do is to get from me the press briefing put out by the Opposition, to print out the comments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) as recorded in Hansard and then to ensure that every member of the public sees them both and votes the right way whenever the election is called.

John Randall: While welcoming the Government's conversion to high speed rail, I am very disappointed, as are many thousands across the country, that this does not mean the end of the Government's plans for a third runway at Heathrow. To raise a key item for my constituents in Uxbridge, south Ruislip and Ickenham, has the Minister any idea how much wider the existing Chiltern line will have to be?

Sadiq Khan: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is important. This is dealt with in the HS2 Ltd report, which is available in the Library today. If he cannot find the information and lets me know, I will send him the details about the width of the line, which is an important issue in respect of the blight caused to his constituents.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am delighted that this scheme is coming up and I fully support the principle of the high speed rail network. Will the Minister of State say more about the sources of the capital funding going into it? We have put £9 billion into the west coast main line and huge benefits have been made from it, partly by Virgin Trains. Will he indicate who is going to run the trains when the service begins? Will it be a publicly owned company?

Sadiq Khan: The current projections are for an average of £2 billion to be spent on construction each year. At the peak, about £3.9 billion will be spent on construction; it is comparable to Crossrail, on which £3.9 billion will be spent at peak. As to the details of timetabling and who is going to run which lines, information will be phased out over the forthcoming period. The important thing now is to get the pre-consultation ready to ensure that consultation begins this autumn. A timetable in the HS2 Ltd report sets out the phases of what needs to take place before we can open the first high speed line in 2026.

Jeremy Wright: Will the Minister of State reassure us that the consultation process on the line of route will not be just for show, but will be a genuine and open consultation process, allowing for the prospect that the route can be changed? In particular, will he take account of the sensitivities involved, for example, in what happens to narrow belts of green-belt land between urban areas such as between Coventry and Kenilworth in my constituency and to sites of strategic interest such as the Royal Agricultural centre at Stoneleigh park?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It would be no good and it would serve nobody if the consultation were a sham, which is one reason why I deliberately couched my statement and subsequent comments in the context of the proposals being subject to consultation. Whether the scheme goes ahead at all, let alone the preferred route, depends on consultation. We are spending some time before the formal consultation begins in the autumn to make sure that we get the process right. I say genuinely to the hon. Gentleman that both the Secretary of State and myself would be happy to meet him to discuss any specific-and I mean specific-concerns he might have about the line. A CD-ROM is available from today, showing where the plans suggest the route might go, which should help him to come up with some questions to put to us.

Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent statement, which is very welcome. The Leeds line will have connections into my constituency. However, is this not a bad time for Network Rail to announce hundreds of redundancies of trackside maintenance workers-at the very time when the rail network is about to expand?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend raises a very good point. We are keen to invest in the future. One chapter in the report deals with investment in the future and the new jobs that will be created. It is unwise to shed jobs when there is good news around the corner. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) also asked earlier about investment in the regions. If potential employers know that a high speed line is coming, it may well change their attitude.

Adam Price: The Minister has stressed the economic benefits from HS2, but surely the corollary is that under his proposals, Wales will be the only nation in this island that will remain unconnected to the European high speed network, so it will be economically disadvantaged as a result. Will he explain to the people of Wales-they have, after all, loyally supported his party in successive elections-what they have done to deserve from this Government a policy of brazen and malign neglect?

Sadiq Khan: I am disappointed by the churlishness of the hon. Gentleman's question. Wales currently has less than one mile of electrified lines. As a consequence of our announcement last year, electrification of the Great Western main line will shortly take place-and at a huge cost. I have already said in response to questions after my statement that HS2 Ltd is quite clear that the intention is for all parts of the country to benefit from high speed in future-and that includes Wales.

Tony Lloyd: I unequivocally welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but can he guarantee to people in the north of England that the interconnectivity of northern cities-Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield and so forth-will not be put in jeopardy by a crowding out of the capital and other resources needed for the high speed link? It would be bizarre if it were quicker to travel to London from Manchester than to go to Sheffield.

Sadiq Khan: One real benefit of the high speed line is the interconnectivity between northern cities and the regions. It is one of its huge strengths. One problem stemming from the Victorian lines and the through lines going from London to northern cities is that there may be decentish south-north connections, but not very decentish east-west connections. My hon. Friend knows about the trans-Pennine improvements being made. One of the huge benefits of high speed rail is the improved connections between different northern cities. Once he has seen the details-he has not yet had a chance to do so-I am sure that he will be even more welcoming of the plans announced today.

David Heath: Of course, I am delighted for the regions that will benefit from this announcement, but I remind the Minister that an awful lot of the country lies west of Reading. Can he give me a date for the electrification of the route to Bristol and tell me when any action is going be taken to improve the Great Western line via Frome and Castle Cary down to Devon and Cornwall, which seems to be the big loser so far as these announcements are concerned? It used to be God's wonderful railway; it is not that any more.

Sadiq Khan: I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman specifying the date on which the Bristol electrification will begin. As he said, his constituents will not benefit immediately from high speed rail, but I remind him and the House that they will do so shortly if the right party wins the next two or three elections.

Katy Clark: I strongly welcome the Government's announcement, and the Minister's earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) about job losses. As he will know, Network Rail is proposing 1,500 job losses, and 12,000 Network Rail maintenance staff announced today that they would strike in an attempt to prevent them. Will the Minister intervene, and explain to Network Rail that the loss of 1,500 skilled staff will not help this project or the long-term future of our railways? Will he take this opportunity to try to prevent those job losses?

Sadiq Khan: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not being on top of the details. I shall be happy to look into the matter and write to her.

Philip Hollobone: Given the length of High Speed 1 and the proposed High Speed 2, it must be extremely frustrating that their respective central London termini are only a few hundred yards apart. Would it not be worth considering establishing a single central London terminus to facilitate high speed traffic both north and to the Continent?

Sadiq Khan: HS2 Ltd considered 27 sites in London, including St Pancras. One of the questions that it will consider now is how easy it will be to move passengers from Euston to St Pancras and vice versa. There could be a rail link, or some other form of people-mover. It would be fairly expensive as things stand, but HS2 will examine the details to establish the best option.

Gisela Stuart: I particularly welcome the Minister's announcement that the Birmingham city centre station would be the new Curzon Street station. That means, of course, that Snow Hill, New Street and Curzon Street stations need to be connected effectively. Is the Minister aware that Centro is ready to start work on the city centre metro extension, which would link those stations if only it were given the go-ahead? Will he take a careful look at that project?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend never misses a trick when it comes to lobbying a Minister.
	I am really excited about Curzon Street station. Members may not be aware that the original Birmingham station was in grade 1-listed Curzon street, which is the oldest railway monument. We are going to bring it back to life. Would it not be great if we could also have another arch at Euston station, so that it could look as it did originally in 1838?
	As always, I am happy to be lobbied by colleagues, and I shall continue to discuss the issues raised by my hon. Friend with her outside the Chamber.

Rob Marris: Will High Speed 2 carriages be large enough to be duplex carriages, like the double-decker carriages on continental trains? May I also ask the Minister to ensure that the trains have enough capacity to take bicycles? Such capacity is sadly lacking in the United Kingdom. If we want a modal shift, that is one development that we should try to build into the design of the rolling stock at an early stage.

Sadiq Khan: As ever, my hon. Friend has made a couple of good points. The double-decker issue has been taken into account by HS2 Ltd, which plans to build two 200-metre connections. As for the point about bicycles-which, as far as my hon. Friend and I are concerned, is even more important-I can reassure him that in aiming to design and build a railway service fit for the 21st century, we will make certain that we do not make a mistake and build a railway service that is not fit for purpose.

Peter Soulsby: It is clear from what other Members have said that high speed rail is the future, but it is not, of course, the immediate future. Is it not important for investment in the conventional rail network to continue in the meantime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the east midlands is to gain the full benefit of high speed trains, the midland main line needs to be electrified so that it can carry those trains and provide the necessary interoperability?

Sadiq Khan: We will be investing £15 billion in the conventional rail system over the coming period, and we are still considering the possibility of electrifying the midland main line. If that is to take place sooner rather than later, my hon. Friend should continue to lobby.

Jim Sheridan: I, too, welcome the statement, but yet again, when a good, positive statement has implications for Scotland, Scottish National party Members are posted missing. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Scottish Government, and share his vision of a properly funded transport system with an Executive who consistently deny the opportunity for a direct link to be provided between Glasgow airport and the good city of Glasgow?

Sadiq Khan: It is worth my pointing out to the House that on a day when we have announced high speed rail for a 335-mile link, the Scottish Government cannot even agree to the upgrading of 9 kilometres of existing track and the laying of 1.9 kilometres of new track for the Glasgow airport rail link. However, I am sure that they will have heard today's announcement and will want to follow the example that we have set at Westminster.

Stephen Pound: The case for the high speed rail route has been made passionately by Ealing council and persuasively by my right hon. Friend. I do not wish to be accused of being parochial, but we are elected by parishes. I am happy to see regeneration ripple out from Old Oak Common lane, but not at the cost of paying for Perivale. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what average speeds, average track widening and acoustic impact he expects, and will he also provide me with a detailed map showing precisely where in beautiful Perivale we are proposing to run these trains?

Sadiq Khan: I shall be happy to provide my hon. Friend with all that information. The trains will speed up and slow down when they leave the interchange next to his constituency. For the benefits of the constituents who are lobbying him, I shall send him information about the track widening and acoustic impact. We have asked the consultants to try to mitigate some of the noise nuisance. I shall also be happy to accompany my hon. Friend to that fantastic, salubrious part of his constituency to assess the potential implications of the high speed link, including its potential benefits.

Andrew Slaughter: I welcome the statement, including the news that the London interchange will be at Old Oak in my constituency and will provide the Crossrail station for which I have long campaigned. This is an excellent opportunity for practical regeneration of a brownfield site, but the work should be done only in a way that protects the quality of life of local residents and the delicate ecology of Wormwood Scrubs. When my right hon. Friend has finished talking to people in Perivale, will he talk to my local residents about protecting the local environment? Will he also use his best endeavours to persuade those on the Tory Front Bench to act with everyone else, including Tory councils, to-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a bit of a cheeky chappie. He asked one question, and I was very happy to hear it, but he should not take advantage. We have heard the thrust of what he wanted to say.

Sadiq Khan: One of the reasons for High Speed 2's choice of Old Oak Common was the interchange with Crossrail, the Heathrow Express and the great western main line. It will lead to a huge amount of regeneration in that part of the city, which is why the two councils have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Slaughter) to ensure that the interchange is provided. I think it would be insulting to my hon. Friend's constituents, and to the efforts he has made, to call the station Wormwood Scrubs International, and I will ensure that any negative impact on his constituents is mitigated.

Clive Efford: I too welcome the statement-especially the news of the Crossrail link with the new high speed rail link, which will enhance the hub that will be created by the Crossrail station at Woolwich-but was High Speed 2 able to assess the impact of the running of freight trains on the same lines as passenger trains north of Birmingham? Perhaps separating freight from passenger trains would be a more effective way of speeding trains up in the long term.

Sadiq Khan: High Speed 2 considered using freight on the high speed line, and one of its conclusions was that it would slow down high speed passenger trains. It preferred the idea of allowing longer high speed trains to run on high speed lines, thus enabling more freight to be carried on the conventional route.
	Many people in London suspect that one of the reasons the Conservatives at Westminster support the interchange at Old Oak Common is their opposition to Crossrail.

John Battle: Although I welcome his far-sighted statement, the Minister would expect me to continue to press for the Leeds link, as that city makes the third largest contribution to the United Kingdom's economy. May I ask him to insist that the lines from Birmingham, west and east, are developed simultaneously, to ensure that further economic development west and east of the Pennines is not jeopardised or disadvantaged in any way in the future?

Sadiq Khan: The alternative to a high speed connection to Leeds would be to go via Manchester, which we think would be daft. My hon. Friend raises an important point about simultaneous development. I will look into the issue, which clearly is one of resources and availability of the construction expertise required. I have been lobbied by other colleagues and I will go away and look at it.

Points of Order

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to raise the issue of the day nursery during questions to the spokesman for the House of Commons Commission. One of the important areas surrounding this whole affair is that the staff-

Mr. Speaker: Order.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. The hon. Gentleman did indeed ask a question on the matter, to which he received a reply. Unfortunately his question was a bit on the long side, which is why I had to cut him off.  [ Interruption. ] Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I am happy to hear it. What I am not prepared to have is Members extending question time and debate through abuse of the point of order procedure. That must not happen.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I think that you will find that this is an important point of order, Mr. Speaker. The facts surrounding the proposal are that the important staff of the House have not been consulted about the proposal. There are no alternative facilities proposed, and as well as the loss of the restaurant and the Astor suite-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry; this is not a point of order. Unless my memory fails me, the hon. Gentleman entered the House in 1992 so he has now been in this place for 18 years. I am sure that he should know by now what is a point of order and what is not. Starting up or continuing a debate and expressing a view about a particular proposal is not the way in which to proceed so far as points of order are concerned. My own suspicion that what he is saying is not a point of order has been confirmed by advice.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to Standing Order 144, under which there is provision that there
	shall be a select committee, to be called the Finance and Service Committee, to consider expenditure on and the administration of services for the House.
	We heard earlier from the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that in view of the time constraints, it was not feasible for a particular item of expenditure-namely the replacement of facilities at Bellamy's bar and elsewhere in 1 Parliament street with a day nursery-to go to the Finance and Services Committee. In your understanding, is it compliant with Standing Order 144 that on such an important issue, involving major expenditure, the Finance and Services Committee can be bypassed?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer is that a decision was made, in an entirely orderly way and after extensive consideration of sites, by the House of Commons Commission. That was a proper responsibility discharged by the Commission and the Commission certainly complies with the Standing Orders of the House. If the hon. Gentleman is worried that in some way the Standing Orders of the House have been breached, I can reassure him that that is not the case. Whether my answer will satisfy him is open to doubt and conjecture, but that is the factual answer to the hon. Gentleman, who need not trouble himself with a further point of order on it today.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. I say very clearly and explicitly to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that he would be very unwise to try to continue the argument on this matter when I have ruled upon it and when I have already had to advise him that his attempted point of order simply did not meet the test. I will give him one brief go; he had better not make a mess of it.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise me, under Standing Orders, what is the point of the Finance and Services Committee if it is not to consider important matters of finance concerning this House?

Mr. Speaker: The matters are set out in the Standing Orders and, as I have just explained to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), there are important responsibilities that fall to the House of Commons Commission, which has been discharging those responsibilities. It is of course open to the hon. Gentleman to form his own view as to the way in which those responsibilities have been discharged. It would be difficult to be clearer or more explicit in response to the further point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman.

International Women's Day

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of international women's day-women's representation.
	 [Relevant documents: The Final Report from the Speaker's Conference (on Parliamentary  Representation), Session 2009-10, HC 239-I, the Government response, Cm 7824, and the First Spe cial Report from the Conference, HC 449.]
	I am pleased to open the debate and want to raise two issues: the Equality Bill and the massive change in public attitudes to equality. For decades, those of us who believe strongly in women's equality and representation have been told that we are on an eccentric fringe-that we suffer from political correctness gone mad. But all of the things that we have fought for so hard over the years-for women to have an equal say in all areas of life-are now in the mainstream of public opinion.
	We carried out a poll last week in the run up to international women's day. It showed that the public have turned decisively against men-only decision making. They think it is important that men and women have an equal say over business decisions that affect the British economy. They think that should be the case even when men have more experience. They think that men and women should have an equal say over the political decisions that affect the way Britain is run. That is strongly our point of view and why we have increased the number of Labour women MPs up to 95.
	People think that international political decisions should be taken by men and women having an equal say. That is strongly our point of view and why we are pressing for the establishment of the new UN women's agency this year. It is the same for decisions about the workplace and local services. That view backs up our commitment to new rights at work, a strong role for trade union equality reps and more women councillors, particularly black and Asian women councillors. We do not have a benchmark for public opinion on an equal say for women 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago.

Theresa May: The Minister refers to the need for women to have representation at an international level and to the setting up of a new United Nations committee. Why have the Government chosen not to nominate UK representatives to CEDAW, the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women?

Harriet Harman: It is a question not of British women being nominated and standing in all posts, but of British women being part of an international network of women that is working to deliver for women in our own country, while also backing up the women who are struggling for development internationally and in their own countries.
	There has been a sea change in public attitudes. I do not think that we would have got anything like those answers to the survey 10 or 15 years ago. This change of public attitudes to women is matched by changed opinion about gay and lesbian partnerships-controversial at the outset and now accepted and celebrated in civil partnerships. The change in public attitudes is matched by changed opinion about older people. There is real annoyance about how older people-especially older women-are written off. The change of attitude is reflected in changed opinion on representation-that, in a multicultural society, we should not have, as we used to, an all-white Parliament. There is a big, and long overdue, change in attitudes to disabled people.

Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that had it not been for the vast number of Labour women Members, we would not now have the forced marriage unit or the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007? I do not think that my predecessor, a Conservative male MP, was aware that there were such things as forced marriages.

Harriet Harman: That would not have been possible without Labour MPs, including my hon. Friend, raising the issue. She has boldly raised issues that were swept under the carpet and particularly affected women, but also men. I pay tribute to the work that she has done, and all the women on the Labour Benches backed her strongly in making such changes.
	People see how equality is important for each and every individual. They know that equality is critical for a thriving and prosperous economy and meritocracy. They recognise that fairness and equality is the basis for peaceful and cohesive communities. That shift in public opinion poses a challenge for everyone, including all the political parties, the captains of industry and the public sector, but it is a helpful challenge and a mandate for yet further progressive change. This is essentially an argument about modernity and a future that is fair for all, in which all are fully represented and have an equal say.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the negative comments in the press and elsewhere about the appointment of Baroness Ashton, mainly because it is claimed that she is an inexperienced woman. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there would not be such negative comments if the person in question were a man?

Harriet Harman: I think Baroness Ashton will prove them wrong. We have all got full confidence in her. She will ignore all the sneering and detrimental remarks, and she will get on with her job and do it brilliantly.
	Our Equality Bill provides the platform to make equality a reality. It is nearing its Royal Assent.

Sandra Osborne: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that that Bill will complete its passage through the House before the general election?

Harriet Harman: We expect the Equality Bill to continue its progress and finish its stages in the House of Lords, and I do not anticipate there will be any amendments that this House will have any difficulty with, in which case we should be able to approve it. It will be a landmark Act when it receives Royal Assent; when it reaches the statute book, it will mark a major step forward on all the issues my hon. Friend has campaigned for over the years.
	The Equality Bill is not just the consolidation of a maze of existing laws; it also contains a great range of new powers and obligations to help the drive towards equality. On equal pay, it will make large employers publish their pay gap. Good employers will have nothing to fear, but bad employers will have nowhere to hide. To tackle men-only decision making in businesses and the public sector, there will be a new opportunity to take positive action at the point of recruitment or promotion. It will be possible to say, We want you for this job because you're a woman.
	The lesson from the progress of the Equality Bill is that that was only possible because of the strong Labour women in this House. Women in the House of Commons have not only changed the face of Parliament; they have also changed the agenda of politics. Because of women in this House, tackling domestic violence and rape, extending maternity pay and introducing flexible working are all on the political agenda and part of the mainstream of our political debates.

William Cash: While celebrating the work of women in politics, will the right hon. and learned Lady also accept that Conservative organisations such as the Primrose League in the 19th century provided the initial spur to women's suffrage? By 1905 that organisation had as many as 1.5 million members. They went out into the political arena and did all the hard work on the ground that was needed for women, and they were Conservatives.

Harriet Harman: I think it is very important for women not only to have the right to vote, but to be able to vote for women and men to sit in this House of Commons. Therefore, I warmly welcome the proposals from the Speaker's Conference, and I thank the Speaker and his deputy on the conference, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who is present in the Chamber. The Speaker's Conference proposals will help us make further progress towards equality of representation in this House.
	The Equality Bill already extended the power for political parties to have all-women shortlists. We are carrying on with that in Labour's selections in advance of the general election, and 58 per cent. of our newly selected candidates are women. We have accepted the Speaker's Conference recommendation that political parties should be required to report on the diversity of their candidate selection. We need to expose under-representation, so that it can be clearly seen where action needs to be taken. This is not just a matter for our political parties; it is a question of the legitimacy of our democracy through this House.

Eleanor Laing: In this debate a year ago, the right hon. and learned Lady agreed with me that if we are to encourage more women to enter the House, which is what we all want, it is essential to address the financial background of how a Member of Parliament can conduct their life, office and work, and the practicalities of how women who are also mothers can combine the jobs of mother and MP. Will she undertake to stand up for women and ensure it is possible for them to be both mothers and Members of Parliament, as she did a year ago?

Harriet Harman: One of the different perspectives women have brought to the House is an understanding of the importance of family life, and of the issues facing people who have the major responsibility for caring for children or older relatives. We want that kind of experience in this House, and it is therefore very important that the allowance system ensures that we can continue to make progress in having more women in the House of Commons, balancing their work and family responsibilities in the same way as do women throughout the rest of the country.
	Many of the women who first entered the House in 1997, and who have, therefore, served for 13 years, are standing down at the next election. Each and every one of them has blazed a trail and made a difference in their constituency, and has paved the way for the dynamic new women candidates who will be taking their place. They have their place in history, and it will be remembered, and I pay tribute to them. They are not Blair's babes; they are their own women, and I am proud of what they have done.

Patricia Hewitt: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for what she has just said about the '97 intake of women MPs, of which I was one, of course-and I am delighted to be succeeded in my constituency by another Labour woman candidate.
	My right hon. and learned Friend has referred several times to the problem of all-male decision making. Does she agree that much more needs to be done to ensure that women are properly represented at the top of all organisations, private as well as public sector, and that the experience of Norway in particular has shown that getting more women on to the boards of private companies improves the quality of decision making and the performance of those companies?

Harriet Harman: I entirely agree, and I pay tribute to the work my right hon. Friend has done, especially when she was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when she drove through the right to request flexible working for family members. That was a very important contribution, among many others she has made.
	Looking to the future, there are three key areas for further action. First, we will have to ensure that we implement and enforce the Equality Bill. It is a framework, but we must put it into practice. Secondly, we will make even more progress in helping families balance work and family responsibilities. Women still do the lion's share of family caring.

Linda Gilroy: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that especially applies to the women in families of deployed service personnel? Does she think that the Equality Bill or any other Government measures will assist in ensuring that the families of service personnel have equal access to dental, health and education services, and to life opportunities as well?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has been a great champion of service families, as she represents the naval city of Plymouth. She also serves on the Select Committee on Defence, of course. She has precipitated a lot of work in respect of the Ministry of Defence, and we and the Government Equalities Office have joined in to ensure that the wives of military men do not miss out on all the things on which progress has been made for women in this country, such as more child care and training and employment opportunities. As she knows, we have produced a Command Paper looking at these issues, and a further announcement was made yesterday. The wives of military families have been very much part of the agenda that I, my team of Ministers and the GEO have been working on.

Fiona Mactaggart: I conducted some research on the difference that women had made in Parliament. One of the responses that struck me was a comment by a Clerk on the Defence Committee, who said that it was not until there were women on that Committee that the families of service personnel were ever discussed. In the old days, when it was an all-male Committee, it discussed the size of the weapons the Army used, not the families who kept the soldiers brave and able to do their job.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember her research. There was a great deal of criticism of the women who came into Parliament in 1997. It was immediately asserted that they had made no difference. Her research shows the massive difference that women have made in the House of Commons: Sure Start children's services, child tax credits, the minimum wage, which has done so much to help women, flexibility for families, the new laws on domestic violence and the work on human trafficking, in which she played a massive part. All those issues show the difference women have made in Parliament, but we are still a small minority and we need to make further progress.
	Women still do the lion's share of family caring. Since 1997, we have doubled maternity pay and leave, and there are twice as many nursery places in my constituency as there were in 1997. That is the same in all parts of the country. There is flexible work for carers and more respite care, but we still have further to go.
	Thirdly, I think we shall see a new era in international relations. In every continent and in most countries, there are now women in senior positions in government and in their Parliaments as never before. Last September, the United Nations agreed to bring together the four parts of its work on women into one single, coherent and effective UN women's agency. The new UN women's agency will help to ensure that international relations can be women working together across continents and countries, rather than just men. Together, we might just be able to help solve some of the problems that male diplomacy has yet to crack.
	At the next election, the country will face a big choice. If women and men want a party that will fight for greater equality, and if they want a party that believes, and has always believed, in taking the controversial decisions to cut through inequality and to empower women as equal, there is only one choice-the Labour party.

Theresa May: I am pleased once again to speak in a debate to mark international women's day. It is an important debate, which we should be having even were it not for the fact that earlier this week we celebrated the 100th anniversary of international women's day. However, I am deeply disappointed that the Government have chosen to make this not a full day's debate but an hour and a half topical debate. Last year, for the third year in a row, we saw the UK slip further down the World Economic Forum's gender gap list. We now find ourselves behind countries such as Latvia and the Philippines, yet sadly the Government have not only decided that our debate should last only for an hour and a half, but perforce-perhaps-they have restricted its scope, which means that there are limits to the number of very real issues that affect women internationally that we can raise. I am particularly sorry about that because as Leader of the House, the Minister for Women and Equality is in the very position to ensure that once again we have a full day's debate. I hope that is not a sign of her waning dedication to equality, as we saw recently in her lack of commitment to all-women shortlists-at least when it came to the selection for Birmingham, Erdington. I am not quite sure what led the right hon. and learned Lady to suggest that a man might have been better for that seat.
	The Minister spoke about the Equality Bill, which we have broadly supported. I am happy to make it absolutely clear to the House that we want it on the statute book. It is not only an important measure in its consolidation of equality legislation, guidance and regulations, where there is multiplicity at present; it also raises and brings together a number of new issues. We do not support the Government's approach in some aspects of the Bill-for example, we think that our approach is preferable on issues such as the gender pay gap. None the less, we want to see the Bill on the statute book and we hope that it will be an Act before the general election.
	It is important for Government and the public sector to set a good example. Businesses are told by the Government that they must tackle the gender pay gap, or face measures being taken by the Government; yet average earnings for full-time male employees in the civil service are still 14 per cent. higher than for women. Businesses are told that they must address the glass ceiling in law firms, the City and the professions, yet the Government have failed to meet all their equality and diversity targets for the senior civil service, with women filling just 32 per cent. of senior positions.
	Employers are told by the right hon. and learned Lady and the Government Equalities Office that they must offer employees more part-time work, yet only 5 per cent. of people in her Department work part time. Those are areas where the public sector should lead, not lecture.

Jim Sheridan: On gender pay, I assure the right hon. Lady that it was never an issue until women in the trade union movement got involved, and not just on gender pay-women in the trade union movement pushed for maternity pay, paternity pay and the minimum wage.

Theresa May: I am happy to record the fact that many women in areas of public life generally have taken up the issue of gender pay, but sadly, despite the fact that we have had legislation on the statute book for more than 30 years and that for the past 13 years we have had a Government who said they wanted to do something about the gender pay gap, we still have one. We still need to find the right way to resolve it. It is partly about legislation, but other issues are involved too-for example, the advice given to girls and young women about the sort of careers they should be pursuing. A multifaceted approach is needed.
	It is a sign of our commitment to equality and diversity that the issue of women's representation in politics and public life lies at its heart.

Lynda Waltho: The right hon. Lady talks much about leading by example. Can she tell us how many women there are in the shadow Cabinet?

Theresa May: Yes indeed. There are six, and the proportion is higher than in the Government's Cabinet.
	The issue of women in politics has been at the heart of the fight for equality since the beginning and I believe that the Conservative party has a proud history of getting women into Parliament. A number- [ Interruption. ] The Leader of the House says there are 17 of them. I remind her that courtesy of the by-election in Norwich, North last year, when I seem to recall that the Labour party was defeated, the Conservatives not only have another woman in the House, but the youngest woman in the House.
	I was about to remind the House that the first female MP to take her seat in the House was a Conservative. The first female Prime Minister of this country was a Conservative and the first female chairman of a major political party was a Conservative-I ought to know, because it was me.
	In 2005, in his first speech as Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made clear his determination to bring more Conservative women into Parliament. Since then we have been making significant progress in the selection of women candidates to fight the next general election. I am very happy to acknowledge that we want to go beyond our current 18 women MPs. Today, about 30 per cent. of our candidates are women- [ Interruption. ] From the Treasury Bench, the Solicitor-General is muttering something that may indicate that she thinks we will not get many women into the House of Commons at the next election- [ Interruption. ] She says they are all in hopeless seats. No, they are not all in hopeless seats. What is crucially different this time is that we have a better proportion of women in winnable seats. If the Conservatives win the next general election, even by one seat, we will go from 18 women MPs to about 60 women MPs.
	The problem for the House is that a significant number of Labour women MPs represent marginal seats, so whatever happens at the next election the overall number of women in the House may not change much. We will increase the number of women on the Conservative Benches, but the number of women on the Labour Benches may decrease.

Fiona Mactaggart: In many ways, the right hon. Lady has made the point I wanted to make. Does she accept that even though 60 is historically a huge number for her party, it would not be for the governing party, because it is less than the number of women in the current governing party? There will, therefore, be a disappointing result if-as I do not expect-her party wins, because fewer women's voices will be heard in Parliament and the number of women here will be reduced from its current 20 per cent. or so.

Theresa May: I assure the hon. Lady that the women's voices heard from the Conservative Benches after the election will make a first-class contribution to the House and to decisions taken by the Government. As she said, I have made the point that, for Parliament as a whole, there is still an issue about getting more women represented in the House. That lay at the heart of the Speaker's Conference, at which a number of matters were highlighted as needing to be addressed. This issue still needs to be addressed by all parties in the House. It is not simply a question for the Conservative party, as the Leader of the House sometimes tries to pretend.

Eleanor Laing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad-I really mean that-that so many women on the Labour Benches who have made a great contribution to the House in the past 13 years are deciding voluntarily not to stand at the next election? That is one reason why the number of women in the House is likely to diminish, and it is sad that they are choosing to leave. That is testimony to the fact that it is still much more difficult for a woman to carry out the duties of a Member of Parliament than it is for a man.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. She raises a very important point, which she also raised as a challenge to the Leader of the House.
	The House is starting to consider this important issue, which will remain an issue for hon. Members, particularly after the next election when I think there will be an increased number of MPs with young families who will need to juggle family considerations and their work in the House. That is an issue for both women and young fathers.

Ann Cryer: I know that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) punches above her weight, but I want to correct the record. I am 70 and that is why I am retiring, not because I am disillusioned by anything in the House or with my party. I want to clarify that.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying her position, and I am happy to echo the tribute that the Minister for Women and Equality paid to her for her work on a number of important issues that relate particularly to women, such as forced marriage and female genital mutilation. We need to keep a focus on those issues because, sadly, there are still too many such cases in the UK. We need to keep taking strong action if we are really to make a change to those young women's lives.
	The need to elect more women MPs does not arise from some politically correct desire for equality. It is necessary because Parliament will make better decisions if it has a greater diversity of people within its ranks. Debates will be better informed if a wider group of people with different experiences take part in them. That relates not only to having more women in Parliament, but to having more black and minority ethnic MPs and more disabled people in Parliament. Women tend to approach challenges and conflict in different ways to men. We also bring a fresh perspective to problems, and identify new and alternative priorities. Having more women would bring a more rounded approach to the big issues of the day and would put new issues on the agenda that have previously been neglected. That has to happen, not just for the sake of fairness and progress, but for the sake of Parliament itself. Having more women in Parliament could help to overcome the alienation that people now feel between themselves and Parliament and between themselves and politicians, which has been exacerbated by the expenses scandal of last year. If we were to have a true cross-sectional representation of society in the House, rather the domination by white, middle-class men that still exists, that would help to increase people's feeling of connection to politics and Parliament.

Katy Clark: The right hon. Lady spoke about the difficulties for women in particular of juggling the role of an MP with family life. Has it made her hang her head in shame in the past few days when she has heard some MPs' interventions about the proposal for a nursery in this place? Most women MPs who have had young children recognise how difficult it is to be an MP and to juggle the hours of the work and the constant last-minute requests made on one's time. It might be impossible to get child care that meets those requirements. Will she put on the record her support for having child care in this place and her party's commitment to ensuring that that happens as quickly as possible?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With no disrespect to the hon. Lady, I hope that the right hon. Lady will forgive me for pointing out that there is an elasticity in Front-Bench speeches in these debates and that hon. Members who make interventions should realise that they might be taking precious moments from the opportunity for them to contribute later in the debate.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	It is important to have child care facilities in the House, but there is also a genuine issue about removing staff facilities without consulting staff. It is a question of balance and how the matter has been approached, but it is, of course, important that child care facilities are available to staff and Members of the House.
	A report by the Electoral Commission in 2004 found that women are significantly more likely to turn out and vote for a woman candidate, and that if women are represented by women they are more likely to feel connected to the Government and to politics in general. The opportunities that an increase in the number of women Members of the House would present us with are huge, because that could be part of reconnecting with a disillusioned and apathetic electorate and convincing them that we are here to listen to and represent them.
	The narrowing of the debate to one about women's representation-

Harriet Harman: That is not a narrow issue.

Theresa May: The Leader of the House may say that, but we are not able to have a full debate exploring issues such as forced marriage and female genital mutilation. Neither can we debate the Conservatives' flexible parental leave proposals, which would give much greater flexibility to parents in dealing with bringing up their children than would the Labour party's proposals. Our intention to extend to the parents of children up to the age of 18 the right to request flexible working would be an important move, as would our proposals to tighten up legislation on the gender pay gap, and other proposals that I mentioned, such as having greater provision of careers advice for young women.
	I conclude by picking up a comment that the Leader of the House made about the work that the Government have done on removing inequality. The National Equality Panel, which was set up by this Government, reported in January and has shown that inequality is higher now than at any time since the second world war. That is not a record of which any Government could be proud and it certainly is not a record of which this Labour Government should be proud. They have decreased social mobility and have presided over a period of increased inequality. The Conservative party is committed to increasing women's representation in the House so that women can take their full part in the life of the Government, this Parliament and public life generally.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me explain the dilemma of the Chair to the House. I am going to call the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) next. After her speech, we shall know how much time there is left. It is quite apparent, given the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate, that 10 minutes is too generous a limit, so I give notice that I am going to reduce it to six minutes so that we can get the widest possible participation in a time-limited debate and so that we can be fair to Back Benchers, for whom such debates are principally intended.

Lynne Featherstone: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall endeavour to be as succinct as possible. I am pleased to take part in this debate on international women's day. The reasons for the lack of women in the House are manifold, and I am sure that most of us in this place understand perfectly what they are.
	I give credit to the Labour Government for having so many women on their Benches. It is a shame that a forcing mechanism was needed to make that sort of step change, but that is the reality. For liberals, there is a contradiction in terms between forcing mechanisms, localism and liberalism. However, my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats has said that my party expects to increase the number of women in this House after the election. Should that fail to be the case, he has said that he will consider an appropriate mechanism, because there does come a point when one will be needed.
	A few years ago, at Christmas time, I was listening to the radio and I heard Bob Geldof say that he could not wait to get home to his wife who was doing womanly things in the kitchen. I do not know whether she was cooking or making curtains, but that was the sort of remark that usually makes me feel a bit ill. However, on thinking about it, I decided that he was merely saying that women make the world a better place, wherever they are. Obviously, that goes for Parliament too.
	As we have heard, the importance of women in decision making cannot be underestimated. I was chair of transport at the London Assembly before I came to the House, and I was struck very forcibly by where and how decisions were made. I determined then that, as a woman, I should look hard at getting my hands on the levers and at being present when decisions about budgets and so on were being made.
	I wanted to be able to move the agenda forward. Too often, women are pigeonholed as wanting some softer option. I noticed that there was a lot of argument in the London Assembly about who had the longest train or the biggest airport. The debate was all about setting and using budgets, and I was determined to be part of it. I am a great supporter of infrastructure projects such as Crossrail, but a great deal of decision making is about home to work and work to home. When women are absent from those debates, too little representation is given to the wider issues of school to home and home to school.
	Domestic work patterns are important. It is not that men cannot speak for women, or that women cannot speak from a male perspective: the problem is that the absence of the female voice on issues means that half of the agenda remains almost entirely unexpressed.

Christopher Fraser: Given what the hon. Lady has just said, is she as disappointed as the rest of us that not one female Liberal Democrat Back Bencher is present for this afternoon's debate?

Lynne Featherstone: I am not going to criticise colleagues for not being here-

Christopher Fraser: We have got some on our Benches, and so have the Government.

Lynne Featherstone: Indeed, and I have my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett)-

Christopher Fraser: He is not a woman!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the hon. Member to desist from sedentary comments, which are not helping?

Lynne Featherstone: That goes to the heart of some of what is wrong in this House, and of why there are so few women in it. One gets ridiculous point-scoring like that, for absolutely no reason.
	If the Leader of the House were still in her place, I would have shocked her by saying that I totally agree with her: if there had been women in the boardrooms of all the banks we might not be in the financial crisis that we are in today. The lack of women in the decision-making and the power-broker positions is partly why we are in the state that we are in.
	I want to move on to speak about the atmosphere in this House. It is a very hostile environment. We all learn to play the game, because there is no alternative, but women who are thinking of entering the House find it very off-putting. For instance, in my view Prime Minister's Question Time is too often adversarial nonsense that is more about testosterone than rational decision making.

John Barrett: When I was a member of a council group, 50 per cent. of it was male and 50 per cent. female. However, almost none of the women wanted to stand for Parliament, for the reason that my hon. Friend gave.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. How do we begin to change the atmosphere? That is the question. When I rise in the House, I try not to follow the practice of scoring points just for the sake of it. The adversarial, jeering, bullying, public-school atmosphere is very off-putting.
	I turn now to the problem of getting a seat, which is not necessarily the easiest thing for all women-or all men, for that matter. I am a single parent, and I faced a Labour majority of 26,000 because I could not go anywhere else. I have no parents and no support network, so I had to fight where I live and where my children were at school. There was no alternative.
	How just is the Conservative proposal for a married couples tax allowance? It drives me mad. I was left alone to raise children and get on with my career to the best of my ability, so why should the tax allowance be given to my ex-husband? I might say that I am very friendly with him, as our split was amicable, but he has remarried. Why should he have the tax allowance, when I am doing my best to bring up my children on my own? It seems so unfair.
	There is no level playing field in getting a seat. Obviously, Liberal Democrat policies on parental leave are very far-reaching but I want to talk about a problem in the Equality Bill to do with equal pay. Women's financial position holds them back terribly from taking part in the parliamentary process, and I am deeply concerned about the proposal for four years of only voluntary equality in pay.
	When one asks a group of students in a classroom who wants to be Prime Minister, the boys will mostly put up their hands and say that they do, but the girls just sit on their hands, even though they know that they could do a better job. There are issues with how women are educated and trained, and how they approach learning to debate and make an argument.
	As I said, my party expects there to be more women in Parliament after the election, but we have many women in councils, in the London Assembly, and in Scotland and Wales. The problem is with Parliament, and perhaps the electoral system. That is what leaves us so short on these Benches at the moment-although I am sure that it is just for the moment.

Anne Begg: I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. I am vice-chair of the Speaker's Conference, and the debate gives me my first opportunity to say thank you to all the people who came to give evidence. I also want to thank the Clerks who arranged the details that allowed the conference to travel around the country, which meant that we were not just taking evidence in the bubble that is Parliament and Westminster.
	The remit of the Speaker's Conference went much wider than the representation of women, as we also looked at the under-representation of people from ethnic minorities, and of disabled people and people from the lesbian, gay and transsexual communities. However, I shall confine my remarks this afternoon to our examination of women's under-representation in Parliament.
	We did not think that there should be more women in Parliament just because that seemed like nice idea, or because it might make the Chamber look more colourful. We came to that conclusion because if Parliament is to reflect society outside and do its job of scrutinising the Government-and if the Government are to do their job of making good laws-there is an imperative to get more women into the House. That goes without saying, but I felt that I had to reiterate it today, given some of the comments that have been made about the recommendations of the Speakers Conference report. Some of those comments suggest that some people still do not get it-they do not understand why it is important to have more women in Parliament.
	I also want to thank the three main political parties-it is a pity that none of the others are represented here this afternoon-for submitting their responses in time for the debate. I am also grateful to the Government for their response to our recommendations in the Speaker's Conference report. I should also like to thank the House authorities, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Senior Salaries Review Body for their comments on our report. I admit that I thought my work would be finished once the report was published, but that has not proved to be the case.
	At the moment, just under 20 per cent. of the House of Commons are women. That is a lot better than the 9 per cent. that we had in 1997, but it still means that this Parliament is only 69th in the inter-parliamentary league table of women's representation.
	In the report, we identified that there were a many supply-side barriers to women's entering Parliament. Some have been mentioned today, and the report discusses many of those barriers in a lot of detail; there are restrictions on the time that I have to speak, so I cannot go into them in detail. However, we know that we need to do a lot more in respect of the education of girls and the role that they can play in political activism.
	We also need to do a lot more encouraging; women, perhaps, need more encouragement than men to put themselves forward for election, not just to this place but to any of our levels of government. Furthermore, there are barriers in this place, to do with the way in which we do business, the hours and the difficulties for those-both fathers and mothers-with young families, if they are to operate effectively in this place.
	There is also a problem on the demand side. Perhaps political parties are not putting enough emphasis on the importance of and need for women. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) said, there is no doubt that the all-women shortlist is the only proven mechanism for improving the representation of women in this place. It has worked effectively.
	The mechanism was controversial when the Labour party introduced it ahead of the 1997 election; I think that I was one of the last to be selected under it before two male Labour party members took the party to an industrial tribunal. If my selection had been ruled out of order and I had had to go through the process again, I would by that time have had the courage and confidence to take on anyone, but I certainly did not have that courage or confidence when I started the process; at that time, I needed encouragement even to think of throwing my hat into the ring. I think many women would fall into that category.
	I thank the party leaders for appearing before the Speaker's Conference. That was brave of them; it was a precursor to the debates that we are about to see, although they were not together at the same table. At least, however, they were willing to give evidence. All three party leaders said the right things about women's representation. Despite their warm words, however, they have not perhaps been able to persuade their own parties that all-women shortlists work. In 2005, 300 of the 646 constituencies had only male candidates. That was ridiculous, and the situation may not be any better next time, although one constituency, Brighton Pavilion, will have an all-women shortlist-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Eleanor Laing: It is a genuine pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). From time to time we all complain about the obstacles that we have to overcome in looking after our children, caring for elderly relatives and so on while carrying out our duties as Members of Parliament. The hon. Lady is an icon to us all, given the amazing way in which she overcomes practical obstacles. Sometimes we should remind ourselves not to complain; the hon. Lady has set a wonderful example, not just to women but to everybody who wants to come to the House for genuine and good reasons and who will not let any obstacles stand in their way. I hope she does not mind my saying that.
	I thoroughly support what the Leader of the House said earlier. It is a great pity that she is not here for the rest of the debate. We all realise that she has a great many titles and a great many jobs to do, but this debate lasts only an hour and a half. I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in saying that in previous years we have had long debates on international women's day, which allowed us to explore all sorts of different aspects of women's lives and representation. It is a great pity that we have only an hour and a half today and that the Leader of the House could not be here for the whole debate.
	The fact is that women do things differently from men. We should not be afraid to say that. The nature of female representation changes this place, and Parliament should reflect the society that it purports to represent. We have made considerable progress in recent years but we all know that we have a lot further to go. Most of us are working day in, day out to try to enable us to do so.
	This debate is in recognition of international women's day, so I want to say a quick word about the international aspects. Last year, I attended a United Nations conference on women in New York. Many countries were represented, most of which had very good percentage representations of women-many of them better than what prevails here. But everybody at the conference agreed that in many countries no real difference will be made until women get to positions of power-until they are Finance Ministers and hold the purse-strings. I am sure that is the situation here in the UK.
	I shall now discuss women's representation in the House. I believe that a woman without family responsibilities is in just the same position as a man without family responsibilities as far as being able to be a Member of Parliament is concerned. The difficulties arise when one tries to balance being a mother-or a father, or someone who looks after elderly relatives, for example-with the responsibilities of a Member of Parliament.
	I make an appeal to those who are at present deciding the new financial regime for the remuneration of Members of Parliament. Whatever happens, we must make it possible for someone to be a mother and a Member of Parliament and do both those jobs properly and to the best of her ability. I make no apology for making a distinction between mothers and fathers on this point; we all know that fathers have responsibilities as well, but given the very short time that I have left and for the sake of brevity, I shall leave out that bit of my speech and make one thing absolutely clear. A mother can properly be a mother and an MP only if she has her children here with her in London.
	People say that it is all right if the children are 25 miles or 10 miles away, but they might as well be 100 miles away. I challenge anyone who has not tried to do it to prove the opposite. The only way that the system can work is if a mother can be in this place for most of the day but be able to pop out for half an hour here and there. She could go to her child's school for an hour or go home at bedtime, before the 7 o'clock vote or just afterwards. She should be able to juggle her time, and that is possible only if her children are here. Those who say that Members of Parliament should live in one-bedroom flats and that it is not for the House authorities or the taxpayer to take any responsibility whatever for women Members' family responsibilities are simply wrong. They would make things impossible for us. That would not be fair on the children of Members of Parliament, and this place should not be based on an unfair system.
	I shall run out of time. The day nursery is a good idea but it does not go nearly far enough; it only papers over the cracks. We need to see the reality of what it is to balance families with representational duties. At present, it looks as though that is not being done. I beg those who make these decisions on our behalf to take real and brave steps to make sure that women can balance their responsibilities to the House and to their families.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: I, too, regret the fact that we have such a short time today for this very important discussion.
	I wonder whether my colleagues have been to Prague. I went there last year, and it really is a beautiful city. I visited the Jewish sector and was immediately struck by the written legacy of the survivors of the Prague scouring of Jews, which took place during the war. Women had written about their experiences, and about just how awful their lives had been. Then I thought about all the women on the continent of Africa who have been involved in terrible wars and the most appalling atrocities over the past 20 years, and how little exists of their experience. What is left for their families and societies to learn? If individuals read about what has happened to women on that continent, they read accounts by people living in America or members of the diaspora living in the UK, but very few from the women in Africa themselves. The reason is obvious: those women are illiterate.
	I regularly visit Sierra Leone, the poorest country in the world, where only 25 per cent. of women can read. During the rebel war that gripped that country in the 1990s, there was barely a woman who escaped some form of rape or torture, yet little remains as a record of those experiences. There is very little for their children to learn about, and there is very little for us to embrace, reflect on and base our policies on in order to ensure that it does not happen again. So many women's lives have been left unaccounted for, and because there is no account they appear to be valueless.
	I am retiring at the next general election, but I appeal to everyone whom I leave behind in the House to remember the importance of illiteracy and its profound effect on women when they think about the funding of countries and provide Department for International Development funding or intervention. Illiteracy in Sierra Leone means that women there experience the highest incidence of maternal mortality, and one quarter of their children die under the age of five, because the country's limited medical resources cannot stretch to providing any written guidance, and even if it were available nobody would be able to read and understand it anyway. Women who have been given notices on how to prepare dysentery medication leave them to one side and their children die of dysentery.
	Women cannot represent themselves in any sphere. They cannot go to the police with complaints or create their own bank accounts, because they simply cannot read. That paucity of written material means that many women never enter Parliament or become a part of their local democracy, so it is difficult for them to call on resources in order to escape that position. DFID funds Sierra Leone, but it funds the army and police. Although that is important for ensuring the security of individuals, it will not liberate women or their potential, and we have a duty to those women, who cannot speak for themselves.
	There are wonderful organisations in this country which are trying to do something about that problem. I chair an organisation called the Construction and Development Partnership, and I know of others, such as Build on Books, which are dramatically trying to change the face of literacy in poor countries. The private sector is not interested. No great opportunity exists to make a lot of money in such countries; they are poor, so there is no great return on any investment, and it is left to charities in our country and throughout the world to pick up the cudgels and move forward.
	Those charities in this country are essentially managed by women, directed by women and for women. So, when decisions are made about intervention in those countries, I hope that colleagues will reflect on the support that women in this country provide to women in other parts of the world, and remember the illiterate women of the world, who depend on our voices and days such as this. They depend on us to promote their cause of concern-advocate women who are more literate than they and ensure that there is funding to make them so, so that they can advocate on their own behalf and write their own histories. That is really important.

Philip Hollobone: It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful contribution by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). I believe she has more academic qualifications than any other Member of the House, and certainly more letters after her name. Her informed contributions to debates such as this will be missed.
	On this occasion of international women's day, I want to raise the difficult subject of Islamic full-face veils-specifically, the niqab and the burqa. I am sure we can all agree with the Leader of the House's remarks-we all want to empower women in being equal. In my view and that of my constituents, the niqab and the burqa are oppressive dress codes that are regressive as regards the advancement of women in our society. I want to make it clear that I am talking about the niqab and the burqa, not the hijab, the khimar or the chador.
	I have been concerned for some time about the niqab and the burqa, but it was not until I took my children to the play area in my local park recently and saw a woman wearing a full burqa that it came home to me how inappropriate and, frankly, offensive it is for people to wear that apparel in the 21st century and especially in Britain. In my view and that of my constituents, the burqa is not an acceptable form of dress and banning it should be seriously considered.
	As I was sitting on the bench in the playground watching my children play on the slides, I thought to myself, Here I am, in the middle of Kettering in the middle of England-a country that has been involved for centuries with spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world-and here's a woman who, through her dress, is effectively saying that she does not want to have any normal human dialogue or interaction with anyone else. By covering her entire face, she is effectively saying that our society is so objectionable, even in the friendly, happy environment of a children's playground, that we are not even allowed to cast a glance on her. I find that offensive and I think it is time that the country did something about it.
	We will never have a country in which we can all rub along together and in which people of different backgrounds, different ethnicities and different religions all get along nicely if one section of our society refuses even to be looked on by anyone else. As I thought more about it, it struck me that the issue is not the clothes that someone wears but the fact that the face is covered. Lots of people wear what others might feel is inappropriate clothing. That is, of course, everyone's choice. The issue with the niqab and the burqa, however, is not that they are just another piece of clothing but that they involve covering the face either in its entirety or with just the eyes showing.
	The simple truth is that when a woman wears the burqa, she is unable to engage in normal, everyday visual interaction with everyone else. That is indeed the point of it. It is deliberately designed to prevent others from gazing on that person's face. The problem with that is that it goes against the British way of life. Part of the joy of living in our country is that we pass people every day in the street, exchange a friendly greeting, wave, smile and say hello. Whether we recognise someone as a person we know or whether we are talking to someone for the first time, we can all see who the other person is and we interact both verbally and through those little visual facial signals that are all part of interacting with each other as human beings.
	If we all went round wearing burqas, our country would be a sad place indeed. Indeed, if we were all to be wearing burqas in this Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how would you know who to call? I also feel very sorry for women who wear the burqa, as it cannot be very nice to go around all day with only a limited view of the outside world. Of course, many of these women are forced to wear the burqa by their husband or their family. The resulting lack of interaction with everyone else means that many are unable to speak or learn English and so will never have any chance of becoming integrated into the British way of life.
	The other issue with the burqa is security. Of course, that problem arises with some other forms of face covering and I do not see why those wearing the burqa should be treated any differently. Bikers wear crash helmets for their own safety, but they are required to take them off in banks and shops. If one were to travel on the tube wearing a balaclava, a police officer would ask one to take it off.
	Many of my constituents have contacted me to say that when they visit Muslim countries they respect the dress codes in those countries and wear appropriate headgear. The phrase that has been given to me time and again is, When in Rome, do as the Romans do. This is Britain; we are not a Muslim country. Covering one's face in public is strange, and to many people it is intimidating and offensive. I seriously think that a ban on wearing the niqab or the burka in public should be considered.

Madeleine Moon: I am pleased to follow the thoughtful contribution by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). I suggest that he look at one of the most socially progressive countries in the Muslim world-Morocco, where, thanks to the personal intervention of King Mohammed VI and his insistence on increasing the status of women in that Muslim country, women's political representation, in just one year, went from two members of its Parliament in 2001 to 35 in 2002. He also ensured that in 2006 the first class of women imams graduated. There are Muslim countries that are moving forward, and it is important that we acknowledge that.
	It is also important that we acknowledge how little progress, in some respects, we have made in this country. My mother is 96; she was four before women got the vote. So in my mother's lifetime, women have been empowered. In 1945, there were 24 women Members of this Parliament, yet by the 1980s there were only 23. We have not progressed and moved on as we should. I have been particularly concerned by the fact that when I talk to young women they have a negative view of politics and are disengaged from politics. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how a woman can be disengaged from politics, but then I would not be here if I did not feel like that; I appreciate that fact.
	In 2001, only 39 per cent. of 18 to 24-year-olds voted; in 2005, the year I was elected, that figure had gone down to 37 per cent. We are told that young people engage in different ways, and we need to show them that there are different ways in which they can engage in politics. I turned to an organisation that many do not see as the radical organisation that it is-the Girl Guides movement. That organisation, in which I was involved as a young woman, can empower women and show them a different way of being and acting in the world. In 2008, it did some research entitled Political Outsiders: we care but will we vote?; I suggest that hon. Members take a look at it. We are talking about active citizens-girls who are committed volunteers and who care deeply but are largely sceptical about politics and getting involved in it. They felt that there was little information; they did not think that the issues we address were important to them; and they did not feel that younger people had prominence in this House.
	Ninety-six per cent. of the girls who were questioned were engaged in some sort of volunteering, but only 45 per cent. had any involvement with politics. They gave the following reasons for non-engagement: that it was not worth the effort, that there were more important things to do, and that it would not make any difference. Well, I can promise those young girls that sitting at home and not voting is the way to not make a difference, but how do we get that message out to them? They do desire to see change, and in fact the issues that the respondents were concerned about are ones about which every woman in the House has shown concern, such as making a difference to the lives of girls, women and young people and stopping domestic violence. Is there a woman in the House who is not engaged in that?
	More than half the respondents were also concerned about young people in gangs and people who carry knives. Standing up to bullying was an issue of concern for 39 per cent., and career opportunities for women were mentioned. Interestingly, so was people not being forced into having sex before they are ready. I particularly liked the fact that 27 per cent. felt there was a need for a ban on the airbrushing of models-I have written in my notes and political poster boys, but perhaps that is just my view, not theirs.
	We need fresh policies to engage young people, and I honestly believe that it is the responsibility of every Member of the House, particularly the women, to get into our schools, engage with our young women and ensure that they understand that women offer role models and exemplars for how to achieve the change that they want for their lives with their children.
	One thing the respondents mentioned was the need to offer work experience placements to 14 to 20-year-olds to give young people access to our world. That is a critical issue that we need to address. The criticism about unpaid interns is stretching employment budgets, which is a difficulty that we need to talk about. It is important that the House address the needs of young people.

Mohammad Sarwar: I wholeheartedly welcome this debate taking place in the House. It is a sign of the progress that we as a nation have made and a testament to the unwavering commitment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to achieving equality, particularly for women.
	I am sure the whole House will agree that women have made, and are making, tremendous contributions in all fields, both in this country and abroad. For example, in the United Kingdom we have had a woman Prime Minister and a woman Speaker of this House, Ladies Thatcher and Boothroyd respectively, in honour of whom we have named two Committee Rooms. Although I did not take part myself, in the debate back in 2008 Opposition Members complained that no one on the Labour Benches had mentioned Lady Thatcher. I therefore wish to make a point of recognising her contribution as the first woman to become Prime Minister of the UK, despite our political and ideological differences.
	In my native country of Pakistan, we have had the late Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, who rose to become the first Muslim woman Prime Minister of her country. She was a great leader whose tragic death was a great loss to the people of Pakistan and the international community, and a personal loss to me as she was a very close friend of mine. Elsewhere abroad, in Kuwait we have seen for the very first time four women elected as Members of Parliament. I am vice-chair of the all-party group on Kuwait, and my office regularly takes on interns from Kuwait, the last two of whom have been talented young Kuwaiti women.
	I have always campaigned vigorously for, and sought to encourage, women from minority groups, particularly Muslim women, to come forward and run in both local and national elections, so that there is better representation in the House. I am pleased and proud that the Labour party has selected four Muslim women in winnable seats, and I am sure that after the general election we will have Muslim woman Members of Parliament in this House.
	At home, there is the completely unacceptable issue of the trafficking of women for domestic servitude and/or sexual exploitation. In today's global age, we rightly take great pride in our ability to work with other countries in tackling common problems. I therefore believe that we must do all we can to bring that shocking criminal activity to an end by working with other countries and establishing greater cross-border co-operation. I pay tribute to the work of the all-party group on the trafficking of women and children, and its chair, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) who, like me, will be leaving this House at the next general election.
	I must also mention her excellency, Her Royal Highness Princess Lalla Jamala Aloui, who was recently appointed as the ambassador of the Kingdom of Morocco in London. Her excellency has been doing a wonderful job, not only as head of the Moroccan mission in London, but as an ideal role model to all Arab women. I will be working closely with her to bring the famous Fès festival of sacred music to London.
	The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) raised the issue of the burqa and the hijab. I must tell him that some Muslim women in this country wear the hijab and some do not-I have taken the opportunity to visit many Muslim countries-but very few wear the burqa or the niqab. However, I believe that today's debate is about empowering women, and what a woman wants to do in life is her choice. Action should be taken against those who force women to wear the niqab, but it is not a big issue in this country, and there is no need for the matter to be debated here.
	Finally, one issue that is very close to my heart-my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) raised it-is forced marriages. That must be addressed. In 1996, three young Muslim women, who were at school, were taken for holidays to my native country, Pakistan, and forced into marriages and detained against their will. When that was brought to my attention by the school and social workers-those were very powerful people-I flew to Pakistan and intervened with the police authorities and the judiciary. I was glad and proud to bring the women back. That sent a very clear and strong message that that type of behaviour is unacceptable in our country. We should all work together to ensure that such cases do not happen here.

Katy Clark: It is a privilege to have the opportunity to contribute to what has been a short but healthy debate on women's representation. I strongly welcome the fact that it is taking place in the week of international women's day.
	We have spoken about some of the physical barriers to women getting into Parliament, including the problem of child care and the other caring responsibilities that women in our society disproportionately have. We have also spoken about how to enable women who are interested in coming here to do so. As someone who is involved in the Labour party, I know that women in the party have been wanting to get to this place for a very long time, but it has been more difficult for them to do so. Only as a result of that experience did the party decide to go to women-only shortlists. Although they are controversial, they have been the most effective way of getting more women on to the Labour Benches, which is why they are now being considered by other political parties.
	The other question is this: why do we bring up girls in our society in such a way that they do not feel that coming to Parliament is an option for them? Every political party-the Primrose league in the Conservative party has been referred to-has many women who are actively involved, and women also play prominent and active roles in other political organisations, be it third-world campaigning organisations or voluntary or charitable organisations. Many of them, however, never consider coming here to be one of the options available to them, so we have to ask some serious questions about why women do not put themselves forward for these positions and why they need so much encouragement to do so.
	The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) about education are central to the debate. The education of women has been their liberation and will continue to be so, so I pay tribute to organisations such as the British Youth Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament, which are going into schools and actively trying to get young people involved in political issues, the issues affecting them and the big issues of the day. I believe that, through getting involved in such organisations and actually starting to believe it is possible to do things such as become a councillor-or stand for the Scottish, Welsh or European Parliaments, or this Parliament-more women will get into this place.
	Our young people, especially our young women, are our hope and future. The fact that we have more women in this place, and prominent women in all the political parties, is vital to presenting role models for women. For many of us, when we were young, we saw very few women politicians, and it seemed a daunting prospect to come to this place. All of us-of all political parties-have a role to play in deciding how we move forward and make people feel that it is a real option for them.
	This place is important not only because of the legislation it passes. Many of us are frustrated about the lack of legislative progress and would like far more ambitious legislation passed, especially in the equality arena. We want the equal pay legislation that has been in place in this country for more than 30 years actually to become a reality, because women here do not have the same kind of economic independence as men.
	In my view, women's economic independence will be a foundation stone in our efforts to give women the confidence to take on all aspects of life, and I consider the benefits system to have been an incredibly important factor over the past century in giving women more options. It meant that they did not need to stay with a man for financial reasons. At the end of the day, if they felt unable to continue with such a situation, the state would provide some assistance-even if it was not as generous or adequate as it could be. In many ways, it has enabled women to have some kind of independence.
	There are practical issues to consider. The nursery issue is a concern for the moment, and if we get some form of child care in this place, it will be a step forward. We also need to look at the expenses system. At the moment, there is some help for Members with dependent children, but it has been proposed that that be taken away and that there should be no transport assistance for them. We need to consider those issues, but we also need to look at why we are bringing up young women who do not aspire to be here. We all have a role in ensuring that we try to connect with those people and make them believe that if they get involved in politics, they can change things and deliver on the issues that are important to them.

Vera Baird: I want to take a minute or two to thank everyone who has participated in the debate, male and female. It is good to welcome our brothers, whether or not we agree with them-I do not agree with the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). None the less, it is good to see them participate fully in a debate that centres on women's issues. Once they are raised, everyone sees them as human issues and carries them forward.
	There have been contributions thoughtful, spirited and provocative. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) was sensitive, in a way that was second to none, to the attitudinal barriers in this place to women's arrival here in greater numbers. I agree with her that it is very easy to pick up some of those attitudinal ways-I am guilty of doing that myself.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has built an international reputation, most particularly in Sierra Leone, to which she referred, and we will miss her greatly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) is much praised by all, and rightly so. She has taken steps to celebrate and champion the rights of women that could have made her extremely unpopular, but she did not hesitate to take them.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and I have a tradition of growling at each other across the Chamber and slapping each other on the back outside it, so let me slap her on the back inside the Chamber for a change. She was brave and right to say what she did, which is that the allowances system for MPs must ensure that MP parents spend time with their children, and it will be women who will lead that drive forward.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I simply growl at each other all the time, but that is the way it goes, I am afraid. I want to- [ Interruption. ] That was not a growl; it was a mistake. Let me tell her that the National Equality Panel has made it clear, if one reads what it said closely, that all our equality measures have moved things in the right direction, even though there is still a long way to go, and that what we picked up was a huge legacy of inequality brought about by an earlier era, which was of course a Tory era. That is clear.
	The right hon. Lady asserted her support for the Equality Bill, and I am glad to hear it. However, what she said is extraordinary, because she led the debate in trying to vote it down on Second Reading. Funky as her pink boots are, to be true to herself, she probably ought to be wearing flip-flops today.
	I want to pay tribute to the Government Equalities Office and to the dynamic and strong leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the chief executive, Jonathan Rees. I also want to make special mention of the Equality Bill team, Wally Ford and Melanie Field, and the other members of their excellent team. The GEO was only set up in 2007, and it is a tiny department. However, people think it must be huge because of the great work it does across government, and because of its impact in government and across the country for disabled people and people of whatever gender. The GEO drives through a great swathe of equality initiatives from a tiny base. It is a very good department indeed, one we should be devoutly grateful for.
	Labour women MPs have been here long enough to have made a significant impact, and they have done just that. We have fought, and will fight, for an equal chance for women at work; for employers to acknowledge caring and family responsibilities; and-this is particularly close to my heart-for domestic violence, violence against women and rape to be taken very seriously indeed: in fact, to be taken deadly seriously. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) for the role she has played in the Speaker's Conference in emphasising that, as we have all said, this House needs to represent the women of this country as well as the men. All of us on the Government side of the House have worked, with intermittent support from the Opposition, for all those aims, and we will work further for women to have an equal say in every area of life.
	The poll to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham referred indicates that we are succeeding in changing public opinion in the direction of equality. That is an outcome devoutly to be wished for, and for which we will continue to persevere. Labour people live by the ethic of equality, and we will go onward-and in government, too-to ever greater achievements towards equality, working hard for a future fair for all.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of international women's day-women's representation.

Business without Debate

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	 Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Northern Ireland Assembly Members  Bill [ Lords]

Second Reading

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	After the long negotiations at Hillsborough Castle and the drama of Tuesday's vote in the Assembly, we now come to what I expect-or perhaps I should say I hope-will be a rather more low-key debate on the setting of salaries and allowances for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I want to begin by congratulating Northern Ireland's politicians on taking the decision on Tuesday to transfer policing and justice powers on 12 April. I also want to thank again all those who have an interest in Northern Ireland affairs, wherever they sit in the House, for their support for the devolution process. I particularly want to thank colleagues who speak for the Opposition parties on these matters; whenever we can, we try to work towards a consensus. Putting power into the hands of local people is the answer and the way forward. As we debate the orders that were laid yesterday to facilitate the completion of devolution, I am confident that we will continue to see cross-party consensus here at Westminster.

Lembit �pik: From my Back-Bench position, may I reciprocate by offering my praise to the Government for what is probably their most successful Department? Twelve or 13 years ago, many people did not think that it was possible to secure a lasting peace, but I am sure the Minister would agree that the transfer of policing powers pretty much guarantees that we will never go back to the dark days of the troubles.

Paul Goggins: We have just over three hours for this debate, and in that time, it would not be possible for me to give a full list of all Labour's achievements in government. However, I am happy to accept the comments of the hon. Gentleman, who played a considerable part when he spoke from his Front Bench on Northern Ireland matters.
	The Bill before the House today will enable the Northern Ireland Assembly to delegate control of its salaries and allowances to an independent body. At present, the Assembly is explicitly prevented from delegating such functions under section 47(7) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Bill will remove that restriction and enable the Assembly to confer the functions of setting salaries and allowances for Assembly Members on an independent body. In keeping with the spirit of devolution, the Bill does not place a duty on the Assembly to change its system of determining salaries and allowances; rather, it leaves it up to the Assembly to decide what type of system to adopt. Presenting the Assembly with the power of delegation is not as straightforward as merely removing section 47(7) of the 1998 Act. The Bill therefore expressly provides that the Assembly may delegate control of its salaries and allowances, and also makes a number of important technical consequential amendments.
	The Bill, however, is short. It consists of only three clauses and no schedules. Clause 1 amends section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enable the Assembly to delegate the power of determination in relation to the setting of salaries and allowances. The clause introduces two new subsections to the 1998 Act. Proposed new subsection (2A) will make it possible either for the Assembly to determine salaries or allowances payable to Members or for those salaries and allowances to be determined by a person other than the Assembly. Proposed new subsection (2B) makes it clear that different salaries may be set for different jobs, such as those of Ministers or Whips.
	Clause 2 makes consequential amendments to section 48 of the 1998 Act. That clause deals with pensions, allowances and gratuities for persons who cease to be Members of the Assembly or who cease to hold certain offices but continue as Assembly Members. Clause 3 deals solely with the short title and commencement, with sections 1 and 2 of the Bill coming into force by commencement order. It will, of course, be a matter for the Assembly to take this matter forward following the passage of the Bill, and I understand that a Bill will be brought to the Assembly that will establish an independent body to set salaries and allowances. I am also told that the intention is to have the Assembly legislation in place prior to the next Assembly election, which is scheduled for 2011.

William Cash: Is it understood and accepted that when someone is in the position of having a dual mandate, a reasonable case exists for that person to receive both salaries on the grounds that they are doing the work? I know that there are constraints on public expenditure and some issues of principle as well, but it seems difficult to understand why a person doing work in two Assemblies should not be paid for both jobs.

Paul Goggins: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an advance copy of my speech, but I was at that very moment about to come to the question of dual mandates. When the Bill was first published, it dealt simply with whether the Assembly should set allowances and salaries or whether they should be delegated to an independent body. Certain amendments, however, including a Government amendment, were considered in the House of Lords, suggesting that the salary of the Assembly Members should reduce to zero, if they received a salary as a Member of Parliament or indeed as a Member of the European Parliament.
	If I understood the hon. Member for Stone correctly, he argues that if someone is carrying out a dual mandate, they should receive a salary for carrying out both functions. The Government's view-I think that this was also the consensus view in the House of Lords-is that they should not receive the salary for the second job, but should continue to receive the allowances for both functions, because their constituents should not suffer from any loss of service. The consensus view in the other place-and I hope and expect in this place, too-is that when someone claims a salary as a Member of Parliament, they should receive no salary for being a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

William Cash: The issue does not arise in my case and is never likely to. As it happens, I still do not understand the logic behind the position, although I do understand the dilemma. When the person receives an allowance, the Minister says that it is for the constituents, but the reality is that the work is still being done, so a salary is still relevant. The issue remains a real problem.

Patrick Cormack: That is the Cash question!

Paul Goggins: I do not think it is given what the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said. Although it is true that two different institutions are involved when the Member of Parliament is also a Member of the Assembly and that secretarial and other support should be provided to serve constituents in both areas, there are only so many hours in the day and there are only so many constituents-thus the Member should be paid one salary.

Andrew MacKinlay: There are two jobs, but what about Ministers?

Paul Goggins: I feel a helpful intervention coming on from my hon. Friend.

Andrew MacKinlay: It will certainly not be helpful.
	This business about there being only 24 hours in a day is absolutely right. It seems acceptable in the UK to have two casts of MPs and Members of the Legislative Assembly, while Ministers are on a very significant and disproportionate salary in comparison with that of the legislators. That is unhealthy and, human nature being what it is, it militates against principled resignations. At the time of the Wilson Government and before it, there were far more principled resignations. The disparity between the salaries of Ministers on the one hand and of MPs and MLAs on the other is unhealthy and it runs against principled resignations. I want to put that on the record.

Paul Goggins: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to put that on the record. While the hon. Member for Stone and I have had an exchange about whether one or two salaries should be paid, the key point is that everyone recognises that we are dealing with an interim period here. The Kelly report made clear the expectation that dual mandates would end by 2011 or by 2015 at the very latest, so in any event we are seeing the beginning of the end of dual mandates. The days of someone being both an MP and an MLA, as described by the hon. Member for Stone, are almost over.

Patrick Cormack: rose-

Andrew MacKinlay: rose-

Paul Goggins: I give way first to my hon. Friend, who I suspect wants to follow up his earlier point, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew MacKinlay: I preface my remarks by saying genuinely that I mean no disrespect to any hon. Members from Northern Ireland or those who represent Scottish constituencies. The question of allowances, however, seems perverse. In the House of Commons, the same office cost allowance applies irrespective of whether a Member represents Scotland, England or Northern Ireland. Yet health, housing, transport and education are dealt with by the MLAs. How can it be right for a Member representing England to receive exactly the same office cost allowances as his colleague from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, while an MP who is also an MLA is given additional resources to do the same kind of work? Either English Members of Parliament are not being given enough resources, or those who represent Scottish, Welsh and Irish constituencies are being given too much.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is in danger of widening beyond its remit.

Andrew MacKinlay: He started it-the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us not worry too much about who started it. I am more concerned with who ends it, and that is me.

Paul Goggins: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has not only widened the debate, but taken me beyond my responsibilities. However, it may interest him and other Members to learn that the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission has said that from the beginning of the next Session of the Assembly, the office costs allowance of an Assembly Member who is also a Member of Parliament should be halved, which reflects the amount of additional work carried out.

Patrick Cormack: I do not particularly want to pursue the Cash question, but I wish to put down a marker for the Minister's consideration. I understand the logic employed by those who argue that the dual mandate is wrong, but ultimately it is not for us to prohibit but for the electorate to decide. If the electorate decide that they are best represented in this place by someone who also represents it in a regional Parliament, is it not a little odd for us to prohibit that?

Paul Goggins: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is ultimately for the electorate to decide who represents them in this place, in the Assembly, or anywhere else; and it is for political parties to determine whether it is appropriate for people to stand as candidates for different legislatures. I think that there is now a consensus on that.
	We can understand why dual mandates arose in a part of the United Kingdom that was riven with conflict, and where people encountered difficulties in standing for political office. We respect those who did stand for election to councils, to the Assembly and, indeed, to this place, but we are moving on from those times, and with that maturity comes the opportunity to focus attention on the one legislature to which people are elected.

William Cash: rose-

Patrick Cormack: Is it the Cash question again?

William Cash: No, it is to do with the constitutional arrangements in the context of devolution. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), for as long as there is one United Kingdom and one sovereign Parliament with jurisdiction over the other UK countries, the issue of the dual mandate-even in the context of increased devolution-will continue to be an issue of constitutional importance and significance.

Paul Goggins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is pleased to have had an opportunity to put his views on the record.
	It will, of course, be for the Assembly to implement all these measures following the passage of the Bill. I understand that a Bill establishing an independent body to set salaries and allowances will be presented to the Assembly, and I am told that it is intended to be in place before the next Assembly election, in 2011.
	The Northern Ireland Assembly is the only devolved legislature that is unable to delegate control in relation to the setting of salaries and allowances. The Welsh Assembly has an independent review panel to consider pay and allowances, and although the salaries of Members of the Scottish Parliament are linked to Westminster salaries, the Scottish Parliament also has power to delegate control of allowances. The Bill will create independent control of salaries and allowances for all the devolved legislatures. From the correspondence and discussions that I have had with the Speaker of the Assembly and with politicians of all parties, I know that there is a firm intention to take this matter forward once the Bill passes through the House.
	It is important that we make these changes. It is a change to primary legislation-to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to facilitate the choice being available to Members of the Assembly. To conclude, the Government believe that it is right to move towards independent control of salaries and allowances in the Assembly.

Laurence Robertson: I join the Minister by saying how pleased Opposition Members were to see the Northern Ireland Assembly agree to the devolution of policing and justice measures, which we see as the final piece in the jigsaw of devolution. It will enable the parties in Northern Ireland now to concentrate on the everyday issues that affect people in the Province; education being one of the most important. We look forward to the orders coming before the house on 22 March and we will support them.
	I also agree with the Minister that it is useful when we can work together on these issues. He and I have had a number of meetings on the Bill. It is a short Bill-only three clauses-but we have had at least that many meetings on it and probably more. But I think that that has been useful; I say that to inform the House, if I needed to, that there is bipartisan support for what is going on in Northern Ireland. The issue are too important to be discussed in a party political way; they are bigger than that and we try as far as we can to work together with the Government. We do not always agree but when we disagree, we do so in a civilised way, which is the way forward.
	We welcome the Bill, which addresses two of the main issues of concern. The fact that politicians-not just in Northern Ireland-do at present set their own salaries and allowances is looked upon by the public with some incredulity. I am pleased that that is changing for the Westminster Parliament and it is right that we introduce the Bill to give the Northern Ireland Assembly the ability to change that arrangement as well. There were good reasons for the Bill being introduced originally as it dealt with double jobbing, which I will come to in a moment. Things have moved on-the Minister is right-and it is only right that we look at the Bill again.
	I entirely agree that an independent body should set the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members. That is a start towards trying to restore at least some trust and faith in the political process. That is the way we have gone here in Westminster-I believe rightly-and the principle is right. As the Minister said, the Assembly cannot delegate such responsibilities at the moment, but the Bill brings Northern Ireland into line with Wales and Scotland.
	We felt-it was certainly the case in the other place-that the proposal was slightly weak in that it did not require the Assembly to move in the direction outlined but merely gave it the competence to do so. The noble Lord Glentoran tabled an amendment to require the Assembly to delegate the decision making to a separate body. The Government, and the Liberal Democrats for that matter, did not support the amendment, so we are where we are. But I am heartened that the Minister believes that a Bill will be brought before the Assembly to make that move before 2011 when the next Assembly elections will be held. That is a good thing; I will not make too much of that in the debate as we understand that progress will be made in that respect.
	The second part of the Bill deals with the removal of the salary of Assembly Members if they also sit in one of the Houses of Parliament or the European Parliament. Again, we support that move and believe it is a step in the right direction. The Minister briefly referred to Sir Christopher Kelly's report on MPs' salaries and expenses. Its recommendation 40 states:
	The practice of permitting a Westminster MP simultaneously to sit in a devolved legislature should be brought to an end, ideally by the time of the elections to the three devolved legislatures scheduled for May 2011.
	That is a very clear statement, and we entirely agree with it for a number of reasons, which I shall come to later.
	In an article in the  Belfast Telegraph in May 2009 my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out that being an MP is not a part-time job, and I think all Members of this House would agree. I fully understand the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but it should be pointed out that if people are physically sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly, they cannot also be physically sitting here in this Chamber, and they cannot at the same time be attending Committees both here and in the Assembly. I think that the public-our constituents-have the right to see that at least we are available for parliamentary business on a regular basis, and that is simply not possible if people are required to serve in two places.

Patrick Cormack: However, does my hon. Friend not agree with me-and, indeed, the Minister-that if there is to be a prohibition, it is okay for organised political parties to choose to adhere to it, but there should not be a provision in law? At the end of the day, it is up to the electorate to decide.

Laurence Robertson: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point, and I have thought about this issue at length. May I return to his question in a moment, however? First, let me say that when the Northern Ireland Assembly was originally set up, it was right for us not to outlaw dual mandates, because that would have meant that Assembly Members and Ministers could have been very inexperienced. Through having the dual mandate, people who have become Ministers are, by and large, quite experienced politicians, and not necessarily just in Northern Ireland, but here in Westminster as well. I therefore think there were good reasons for not outlawing dual mandates at the start, but we have moved on now.
	Let me now directly answer my hon. Friend's question as best I can. This issue is not only about whether people are able to spend sufficient time both in the Assembly and here-and I have personally witnessed occasions when it has been impossible for hon. Members from Northern Ireland to serve on Committees here, which is not a good situation, as I do not think that allows them to do both jobs properly. There is a further point to make, about people's ability to serve two masters. Westminster MPs should be able to take a dispassionate judgment on the workings and performance of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I do not think they are entirely able to do so if they also sit on that Assembly. Therefore, I do not think this is merely an issue of time; I think it is also about whether one person can serve two masters.

Patrick Cormack: This is a very important issue in the Northern Ireland context, because, after all, five Members who have been elected to this House have never taken their seats. When they appealed to the electorate to elect them, their constituents knew they would not take their seats, but, nevertheless, they were returned. If we go down the road my hon. Friend suggests, the logical consequence is surely not to allow people who are not prepared to take their seats to stand for election.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) takes me on to a slightly different issue. I understand that when Sinn Fein candidates stand before the electorate at a general election, they say to the electorate that they will not take their seats if they are elected.

Christopher Fraser: They do take their expenses, however.

Laurence Robertson: Yes, they do take their expenses.
	I am very unhappy about the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire raises. I agree that Sinn Fein Members tell their electorate that they will not take their seats, and the people who vote for Sinn Fein might accept that. However, people who vote for the Social Democratic and Labour party-or the Democratic Unionist party or the Ulster Unionist party-have a right to be represented in this House, so I do not think that is acceptable for those who are elected not to take their seats. I would much rather that Sinn Fein Members take their seats in this House. I do not know whether I have fully satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, but I have given the reasons why our party's Front Bench spokesmen oppose the practice of holding a dual mandate. The Bill was too narrow in scope to include an amendment that would have corrected that situation and we should have liked to amend it to outlaw the practice. But we are where we are, and in the Lords the Government tabled a compromise amendment that we were happy to agree to.
	A Conservative Government would revisit the issue, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said. We recognise that most Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland are engaged in two jobs, but many of them agree that things have moved on and they have to change. If elected to Government, before introducing legislation, we would try to come to a voluntary agreement-a negotiated settlement whereby the practice does not continue; but my right hon. Friend has said that if necessary, we would consider introducing legislation to bring it to an end. We feel that is what the public require. They also want a separate body to set allowances and salaries in Northern Ireland, rather than the Members who receive them. For those reasons, I am happy to support the Bill.

Mark Durkan: As a Member of this House who has also been elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and sits there, I begin by declaring the appropriate interest.
	The Bill is welcome because it will help to discharge the agreed wish of all the parties in the Assembly-to make sure that we move beyond the strict provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which obliges the Assembly to be responsible for setting its pay and pension arrangements, to appoint an independent body. Because the Assembly is bound by the 1998 Act, legislation is needed in this Parliament to enable the Assembly to do that. As the Minister indicated, that is the clear wish and intent. The Speaker of the Assembly and relevant officials have committed themselves to providing a Bill. We know that Bills are often promised and we commit ourselves to all sorts of reforms and schemes of legislation in Northern Ireland that are often delayed. I hope that that Bill will not be one of them, because it is important.
	I recall the 1998 Act and the issues that determined the drawing up of the rules. Northern Ireland Office Ministers at the time felt that that was the way to do it. They did not want to open up other issues. They thought that setting up other bodies might be more complicated and could give rise to other questions. That was then. We are all in a different place now and are looking at the issues in the light of different considerations and different public attitudes.
	This Bill has been given welcome amendments to make further moves on the question of the dual mandate. I stated my personal position in the Assembly as far back as February 2009, in a debate on dual mandates: if I was re-elected to this House it would be on the basis that I would stand down from the Assembly. I did not believe that the dual mandate was sustainable, particularly if we achieved the devolution of justice and policy and had a more complete and settled Assembly, freer from some of the duplication of business that goes through this place and also plays out in the Assembly. Such things gave rise to parties needing people to perform a dual mandate, with particular obligations on those in leadership positions to be in both the Assembly and the House at Westminster. The more the business in both Chambers becomes distinct, and the more complete and settled the process, the more the case for such transition juggling disappears. I set out clearly in personal terms that that was the case.
	My party made those points in submissions to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee as far back as late 2007. We said that all parties needed to agree and commit to either a fixed date or a point in the electoral cycle when dual mandates should end. Unless we get a fixed position on that from all the parties, one party will use what another party is doing as its excuse for having to continue the dual mandate, particularly when leadership figures in one party have dual mandate and make that claim on the basis that there is some justification for it, by way of advantage or influence. Other parties would also feel compelled or justified in doing the same, so it needs to be set.
	There have been motions and debates in the Assembly on this issue-not just the one in February that I have mentioned but another last November when the Ulster Unionist party tabled a motion that highlighted the Kelly committee recommendation that 2011 would be a desirable end-date for the dual mandate. My party supported that motion and opposed the Democratic Unionist party's amendment that 2015 should be the backstop, so we were saying that the dual mandate should be terminated sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, the DUP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance party combined to go for the later date-the Alliance completely confounding the position that had been taken up on its behalf, based on its previous position, by the Liberal Democrats, including by Members of another place and this House who had raised that issue in early-day motions. So, the Alliance party confounded its position-all, as we know, in pursuit of other gains, offices and privileges.  [ Interruption. ] It changed its position on that. We, at least, have been consistent on that issue and others, and we have not embarrassed our friends or ourselves in anything that we have done in that regard. I say that to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) who is making remarks from a sedentary position.
	The amendment tabled in another place to end the practice by which someone who has a dual mandate receives a third of the salary of an MLA if they are also an MP is welcome and we agree with it. Indeed, that is one of the things that we suggested as far as back as the submissions that we made to the AERC in November 2007. However, the steps to reduce the dual pay, or the fraction of dual pay, should not, of itself, be seen to deal with or discharge the question mark over dual mandates per se. For reasons that other hon. Members have touched on, I believe that the issue still needs to be clearly and cleanly resolved in its own terms.
	The amendment perhaps does not go far enough, because although the Bill allows people to be Members of the Assembly and not be paid as MLAs, it still allows them to be Ministers or other office holders in the Assembly and to be paid as such. I believe that a Minister in an Assembly should be full time, accountable and available to that Assembly and should not also be in another place. That is my position and that is why I did not take up an appointment as a Minister in the current Executive when I could have done so when devolution came in 2007. Having been a Minister before, when I was not an MP, I knew the pressures, issues and difficulties of the work, so I made that choice. I still think that that is an issue to consider and I would welcome a further amendment to the Bill on that. If there were such an amendment, I would accept an exception, if Members wanted one, for the posts of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, which should of course be elected by the Assembly, although they currently are not in what is a departure from the Good Friday Agreement, under the St. Andrews agreement. If we were to revert to having the Assembly elect the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, then I would say, in the same spirit as the comments of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), that the Assembly should have the choice to elect whomsoever it chooses as a Member. Otherwise, there should be that restriction on the role of Ministers as a matter of principle.
	People have been able to justify the dual mandate until now because of all the circumstances, transition and change. Some of us, including the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), have been able to use our different roles in a complementary way-in changing credit union regulation, for example. We both used our positions on a Committee in the Assembly to address the issue there, and we are also using our positions here to take forward the other side of that issue. These are other examples about which we can say that we have been able to use the roles in a sensible and complementary way, but I do not believe that those good examples can be stretched any longer into a general rule of justification for dual mandates.
	I believe that the business that will confront this House in the next term will be big enough and that it will touch on the lives of many people in Northern Ireland. It will interface quite heavily with devolution. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that there is such a neat and total separation between all the public business that is conducted in this House and the strict confines of devolution, given the budgets and laws that are set here. In many ways, they have consequential implications and direct impacts on the discretion and choices available to the Assembly and the Executive. However, I believe that we need to move into a situation where the people of Northern Ireland know clearly that their MLAs are full time, committed and active in the Assembly and its channels. The same must be true of MPs here.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to this House's status as a sovereign Parliament. However, I must point out that legislation has been passed in this Parliament-not in this term, but during the peace process-to amend the previous restrictions that meant that a Member of this House could not also be a member of the Oireachtas, either as a TD or as a member of Seanad Eireann. The restrictions also meant that a person could not be a member of the Assembly in Northern Ireland and a member of the Oireachtas. They have been lifted, but the Bill does not deal with the question of what happens when a person is a member of the Assembly and of the Oireachtas. People are now legally entitled to belong to both, so what happens now? If we are going to look at things in their totality, that should be borne in mind as well.

Alistair Carmichael: May I join others in expressing my pleasure at taking part in a debate on what is, for once, a fairly non-contentious piece of legislation? We have come through yet another period in Northern Ireland politics when the debate has been occasionally fraught and sometimes even febrile, so dealing with a Bill that is essentially the subject of consensus-among the parties, if not necessarily always within them, apparently-is indeed a pleasant change.
	When he introduced the Bill, the Minister said that it was short and that he could be short in speaking about it too. I think that perhaps I can be even shorter. Along with others, I think that the Bill was framed and conceived to be permissive rather than directive, and that giving the power to delegate allowances from the Northern Ireland Assembly to a free-standing body is a sensible way to proceed.
	That approach understands the nature of devolution. It would be entirely wrong for this House to start telling the Assembly what it ought to be doing. In any event, and for all intents and purposes, it is pretty clear that that is the intention of those who currently sit in the Chamber in Belfast, so it appears to me that we will all end up at the same destination, whichever route we take.
	The only element worthy of some debate today is the question of dual mandates. I have long taken the view that the continuation of dual mandates is unsustainable; perhaps I am informed particularly by the fact that I represent a Scottish constituency. If the situation is unsustainable for a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Belfast, it must surely be unsustainable for a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Only one person holds such a dual mandate and I hope that after the general election there will be no others. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) eloquently explained, it is simply not sustainable for people to seek to represent constituents in two separate Chambers at once.
	There is a different issue in respect of somebody who is a Minister in Belfast and also represents constituents here-that much is understood. However, there is a distinction to be drawn. Being a Minister gives extra responsibilities to a person while they are in London, but being a Member in Belfast and London, or Edinburgh and London, requires people to be in three places at once, rather than just two-we have to add in the constituency at the same time.
	As others have said, the situation arose for good and understandable reasons. It is a mark of the progress that we have made that we should now regard the Northern Ireland Assembly as sufficiently mature for the question of dual mandates to be able to be consigned to the history books rather than being a feature of contemporary politics. I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that we should eventually look to an abolition de plano rather than merely the removal of the salary. However, the provisions represent a helpful and necessary first step; at the very least, there should not be a material advantage to those who seek to use the system to acquire a second or third job by being a Member here as well as in one of the devolved institutions.
	There is very little with which we would take issue in the Bill. Perhaps some further teasing out of these issues will be allowed in Committee, but this is a sensible measure that commands a broad consensus. We are pleased to be part of that consensus.

David Simpson: I should like to start by making reference to the Minister's welcome for the decision taken by the Assembly at the vote on policing and justice. I have to put it on the record that there is a lot of disappointment in Northern Ireland today at the stance of the Ulster Unionist party, now a sister party of the Conservative party. It did not support policing and justice. That seems very hypocritical and it is very sad that the party should have taken that decision. But we are where we are.
	On the face of it, the Bill is short and fairly technical. It amends section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to allow the Northern Ireland Assembly, if it so wishes, to delegate responsibility for the salaries and allowances of its Members. I think, and my party believes, that that is a wise move that will be widely welcomed. Politicians should not be responsible for setting the level of their salaries or allowances.
	The Bill makes another important amendment to section 47. Clause 1(5) will amend section 47 to ensure that a Member of the Legislative Assembly who is also a Member of either House of this Parliament or of the European Parliament will not receive a salary from the Assembly. That is already my party's position; it has made that very clear. Even before that proposal, the Democratic Unionist party had, of its own volition, stated that any Member of this House who would be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly after this election would not take any salary whatever from the Assembly. I therefore warmly welcome the proposed change, which will put into legislation what we had already said we would do voluntarily. Other parties had not set out their position as clearly. If a Member of this House is also a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, he or she should not be paid for the latter. For my part, since being elected to this House I have donated my Assembly salary to many causes and youth organisations in my constituency. That is on the record in the Assembly and in the press, and I am glad to say that this year alone my elected friends and my donations have contributed well over £20,000 to Upper Bann.
	The reputation of this Parliament, of the United Kingdom's Assemblies and of politics in general has been seriously damaged by the recent controversy and the heated debate throughout the nation about politicians' expenses and so on.

Christopher Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Sir Christopher Kelly, who told the Assembly's Standards and Privileges Committee that any new body appointed to regulate salaries and allowances should also have the power to investigate any alleged wrongdoing without a formal complaint being made? That will add to the transparency and accountability to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

David Simpson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, I agree 100 per cent., and our party is on the record as having said that.
	Every political party has had cause to be embarrassed by the events of last year. Sometimes that embarrassment has been the result of guilt, and on other occasions it has been the result of wrongdoing, but none the less politicians need to understand that the world has changed. Expectations have changed. Politics and politicians need to change, too, and some time ago my party set out a series of proposals that were aimed at reform. Our suggestions incorporated salaries, allowances, accommodation, the employment of staff, MPs' outside employment and the operation and oversight of the Fees Office. We were attacked by our political opponents even as we did so, yet many of those who attacked us were content to take little or no action themselves. We made a full submission to the Kelly inquiry, and we are totally committed to supporting the implementation of its recommendations in full.
	The DUP remains fully committed to ending dual mandates, and we have taken the lead on that matter. Unfortunately, other parties in Northern Ireland have not committed themselves. Ours is a growing and thriving party, and many in the ranks of the DUP have the potential to play a significant part in politics in Northern Ireland. We want to nurture and develop that rich and diverse pool of talent, and that is what we are doing.
	It is clear that we have already embraced the spirit of the Bill. We are already moving towards implementing one of its core provisions-and going beyond it. the same cannot be said for other political parties in Northern Ireland. While they snipe at the Democratic Unionist party, they are, it seems, quite prepared to maintain a double-jobbing mentality. The Ulster Unionist party contains in its ranks several representatives who have more than one job. Some are farmers, some are antique dealers and their party leader is a councillor and an MLA. Indeed, in the past we had double-jobbers, such as my predecessor, Lord Trimble, who was an MP, an MLA and the First Minister. Not a single person ever raised a single criticism of him on that matter from these Benches-not one. There are, however, many people back at home in my constituency of Upper Bann who are very critical of the fact that despite holding so many offices and having access to many allowances, he decided that a single part-time constituency office on double yellow lines at the busiest set of traffic lights in the town of Lurgan in my constituency was sufficient constituency provision. As can be seen from that, there are serious issues about in how many Chambers politicians represent their constituents. However, there are also very important issues about the level of provision and the kind of representation politicians give to their constituents.
	In conclusion, as I said at the start of my speech, the Bill is a step in the right direction. More steps will be needed, whether we make them through legislation in this House or through some other mechanism for another day, but I and my party are on record as welcoming this step forward and I am more than happy to support the Bill.

Patrick Cormack: Everybody who has spoken up to now supports the Bill, and so do I. May I begin, as others have, by congratulating those who voted as they did in Stormont, including the party of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and that of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), on Tuesday night? I deeply regret the fact that the Ulster Unionist party did not feel able, at the very least, to abstain. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the efforts that they made to persuade the Ulster Unionist party to support the provision. No criticism can be levelled at them, but I believe that the UUP took a regrettable decision and I want to put that on the record.
	I also want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, who approaches his tasks with a wonderfully genial approach, that I do not disagree with him on the subject of dual mandates any more than I disagree with any other colleague. It is just a question of how one comes to the solution; that is all. I believe that the dual mandate has played a real part over the past few years in getting us to where we are today. I think that we would all say that the presence of Northern Ireland politicians in this Chamber who have been struggling to create and then to recreate an Assembly in Belfast has enriched our deliberations and continues to do so.
	I do not think that the dual mandate is the ideal solution in perpetuity. I personally think that it is entirely commendable that the parties are seeking to outlaw within the party rules the dual mandate and so I have no disagreement with my hon. Friend on that, nor with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It is just a question of how we arrive at the solution, because at the end of the day the electorate must be in a position to elect people whom they wish to send here in the knowledge of all the shortcomings.
	I cited the example of Sinn Fein and I deeply regret the fact that its Members do not take their seats here. I deeply regret that there is no Sinn Fein Member on my Select Committee. I have pleaded with them to alter that state of affairs. I have not succeeded and I do not think that there will be any chance of success in the foreseeable future, but am I the one to say that they should not be eligible to stand? They have made their position plain to the electorate. There will be many people in each of their electorates who deeply regret that and vote for other parties, but unless we have proportional representation, which I do not personally favour, I am afraid that those who support the DUP, the UUP and the SDLP and who live in Sinn Fein constituencies will be, to a degree, disfranchised. We have to face up to these facts of politics in Northern Ireland.
	I hope that we can move to a situation where all the individual parties have a common line on the dual mandate. I do not have terribly strong views on whether that happens this year, next year or the year after that, but we need to move towards it.
	What is much more important is that we need to ensure that the fragile institutions of the Assembly and the Executive are sustained: that is crucial now that they are about to take on the extra responsibility of policing and justice powers. They need good and firm friends in this House, and in the new Parliament, to ensure that they succeed. I entered the House when all the Ulster Unionists, who were virtually the entire representation of Northern Ireland, sat on the Conservative Benches and took the Conservative Whip. We have moved a very long way from there. We have had some extremely difficult and troubled times that I do not wish to go back to-none of us does. We have to ensure that what has now been established is reinforced, built on and supported.
	The most heartening feature over the past troubled decades in Northern Ireland has been the bipartisan nature of politics. As I have said before in Select Committee sittings and elsewhere, the Minister of State is an exemplary Minister who is highly regarded throughout the Province, and rightly so.

Andrew MacKinlay: So is his deputy.

Patrick Cormack: I am speaking of the Minister of State. That is not to cast any aspersions on the Secretary of State; I am talking about the Minister of State because he is the Minister who is here today to reply to this debate.
	The Minister has been exemplary in the way that he has fulfilled his duties. He would be the first to admit, however, that his job has been made easier by the constructive support that he has received from my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and, indeed, from the successive spokesmen for the Liberal Democrats.  [ Interruption. ] Of course he has had support within Northern Ireland, but I am talking about this House, where he has had the support of the major UK parties. That must have made his task pleasanter and easier, and long may it continue. Whoever has responsibility for Northern Ireland in this House in the new Parliament-if it is a Secretary of State, they will be a Secretary of State shorn of many of the powers that the present one had when he first came to office-needs that cross-party, bipartisan support to ensure that we build on the achievements of recent years.
	This is a modest Bill, but I think a good one. It is, rightly, permissive in giving Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly the right to decide how they will have their affairs regulated. There is one appeal that I would make to them. We have had a troubled year in the history of this Parliament; it has been the saddest year of my political career.

Andrew MacKinlay: indicated assent.

Patrick Cormack: I can see the hon. Gentleman nodding vigorously, and I know that you share those views, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	It has not been a good year. I do not want to make any criticisms of anyone in particular, but to a degree this House has been panicked into making certain decisions and setting up certain bodies. I am glad that our pay and allowances will be regulated and decided upon by an outside body, but the way in which we rushed to this means that I am not entirely convinced that those who are in charge of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority completely understand what it means to be a Member of Parliament. I would say this to our friends in Northern Ireland: you have time to avoid that problem, so if you are going to have an independent body, be it an offshoot of IPSA or a wholly different body based in and drawn entirely from the Province itself, for goodness' sake make sure that you take your time and that you are not bounced into a series of rules and regulations that could infringe upon the sovereignty of your Assembly just as I fear that some of the rules and regulations that are being drawn up will infringe upon the sovereignty of this Parliament. I will not be part of it, any more than the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) or my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) will be. Nor, indeed, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that I can speak for all of us in saying that we will miss this place enormously, because we all love it, but it is passing into uncharted waters. It is terribly important that those who regulate our financial affairs do not do so in a way that deters those who are determined on public service and militates against the family man or woman of modest means. We are in danger of making those mistakes here, and I hope that those who represent their constituency in the Assembly in Northern Ireland will learn from our mistakes and take their time in deciding upon and setting up any independent institutions.
	With those words of caution, which I hope are entirely relevant and which are meant to be entirely helpful and constructive, I commend the Minister and the Bill. I wish all those who will have to wrestle with these problems in Stormont every possible success in so doing.

Paul Goggins: This has been a good, thoughtful and short debate-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman needs the leave of the House.

Paul Goggins: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond briefly to what has been a thoughtful, if short debate.
	I am grateful again for the support of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for devolution in general and for this particular Bill. He is right that we have discussions outside the Chamber, and I would encourage any Minister and Opposition Front Bencher to do that whenever possible. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, on a number of occasions when there is common ground between us, we should seek out that ground and occupy it together. I was pleased that his noble Friend Lord Glentoran was able to join us for some of our discussions, because he had fair, legitimate questions to ask about the Bill and other matters. The hon. Gentleman is right that there was initially a sense that the Assembly should perhaps be forced to take the action set out in the Bill, but the reassurances that we received from the Assembly's Speaker and the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission helped persuade his noble Friend and others that the Assembly was serious about the matter and could be allowed to get on with exercising its legitimate choice.
	The hon. Gentleman, and every other Member who spoke, referred to the dual mandate. There were a range of opinions on that, and through discussions the Government brought forward a change that I believe satisfied everybody, at least to some extent, by reducing to zero the salary of a Member of the Assembly in the given circumstances. We are all clear that we are in a period of transition in relation to dual mandates, and we have had a good airing of the discussion about that this afternoon. Importantly, we remembered that the core purpose behind the Bill was not to end dual mandates but to facilitate a choice for the Assembly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) referred to the fact that often Bills are promised and then delays occur, but I cannot envisage Members of the Assembly seeking re-election or fresh election without the matter having been resolved beforehand. I am confident that it will have been dealt with before the next Assembly elections. He also made the important point that whichever legislature an individual is elected to, they should focus strongly and entirely on the matters before that particular legislature. As he said, it is perfectly legitimate for a Member of Parliament elected by constituents in Northern Ireland to come to this House and focus entirely on the matters that come before it. He himself takes a great interest in a range of issues, and there are matters from fiscal policy to foreign policy in which MPs from Northern Ireland should participate fully.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly made the point that the Bill does not tell the Assembly what it has to do but gives it a choice. I endorse his comments on dual mandates, about which he feels very strongly, and I am pleased that he had the chance to express his views. I entirely agree with him: the fact that dual mandates are beginning to come to an end in Northern Ireland is a sign of political maturity and we should all welcome it.
	The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) clearly set out his party's view on the Bill and on dual mandates generally. He made a number of party political points, on which, as I am sure he will understand, I do not particularly want to comment. However, I recall one important phrase that he used on the need to nurture the pool of political talent. That is something that every political party in the United Kingdom needs to do, but it is particularly important in Northern Ireland. We want a new generation of politicians to come along and build on the tremendous achievements of this generation of Northern Ireland politicians. He is entirely right to say that that should focus the minds of all political parties.

David Simpson: In case I did not put it on record at the beginning, I want to make it very clear that I am also a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: Forgive me-because of another message that was coming my way, I did not quite catch the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

David Simpson: I made the point that I am also an MLA.

Paul Goggins: Ah! The hon. Gentleman was declaring the same interest as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.
	We will all miss the contributions of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) to debates in this House on a range of issues, but particularly on Northern Ireland. He has always taken a great and serious interest in Northern Ireland. It has been great to see him exercise that interest in his chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee over a long period. His contributions are at times robust and at times supportive, but they are always appropriate for the topic in hand. We will miss him, but I am sure that others will come to take up those interests, and it is important that they do so. He made his views on dual mandates very clear, and the House heard them. Again, the Committee's interest in a range of democratic accountability issues, including the importance of devolution of the institutions and ensuring that they are as strong as can be, has been important. We will all reflect on the points he made.
	In the hon. Gentleman's conclusion, he made the extremely important point that although we have seen tremendous achievements over recent months and even in recent weeks, we should not just assume that everything is now completed. He referred to the Assembly as a fragile institution. It is still early days, and the culture of governance needs to develop further in Northern Ireland. As welcome and as important as those developments are, Northern Ireland politicians, whether they represent Northern Ireland constituencies in this House or in the Assembly, will still need friends in this place to take an interest, and to show support and solidarity with them. I believe he said that Northern Ireland will need good and firm friends, as indeed it will. However, we can look back over this week and recent months, and indeed the 12 years since the Good Friday agreement, with some satisfaction at what has been achieved.
	I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about all-party support. Although the process has happened under this Government, it has happened with all-party support for what we have done. He asked rhetorically whether the current situation could have been achieved as it has been without all-party support, and he is right that it could not. Our achievements have required the all-party consensus that we have sought to achieve here. That is not to say that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury does not ask difficult questions in Committee or in debates on the Floor of the House-that is the purpose of scrutiny in this House-but we have retained a consensus when possible, which has been essential to the progress that we have seen in Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Northern Ireland assembly Members bill [ lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A (7) ),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [ Lords]:
	 Committal 
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	 Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and Third Reading 
	2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.
	3. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	5. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings 
	6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.- (Lyn Brown.)
	 Question agreed to.

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.- (Lyn Brown.)

Adam Afriyie: I rise to speak about the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 and the impact it might well be having on Windsor fire services and their evolution. The Berkshire fire authority has been using a piece of software to calculate where it ought to have fire stations around Berkshire. This magical piece of software, so much cheaper than the democratic process, has decided that it ought to close Windsor fire service and perhaps locate services to Wokingham, under the model that has been designed. More coverage seems to be needed in suburban developments in Wokingham and elsewhere in the county.
	Far be it from us in the House of Commons to challenge the wisdom of magical software-even though I spent 20 years in the industry! Indeed, the day may come-although I hope not-when all of us in the House will be replaced by automated devices. And I am not just referring to the House of Commons-it might even happen in the European Commission.
	There are obvious flaws, however, in the software's reckoning. Newly developed areas need more fire cover, that is for sure, but they also contain low-density housing. The main risk is from domestic fires and road incidents, and because such houses will be new, many of the more modern fire and safety regulations will be enforced in those properties, and potential victims will be limited to individual households or vehicles.
	Windsor is much more vulnerable, in many ways. It is vulnerable to air traffic incidents. We are under the Heathrow flight path, and with the burgeoning number of flights from that airport-under the Government, it has risen to 480,000 a year-there is a danger of an air incident. The boundaries of my constituency are only yards from Heathrow's northern runway and the flight path crosses directly over the town. It is not the noise disturbance that is relevant but the danger of an incident occurring nearby-there have been many such incidents over the past couple of decades, which may have had an impact.
	Windsor is also vulnerable to terrorist attack. The royal family are often resident, there are two army barracks in the town and the units within those barracks regularly rotate to Afghanistan, so there could be some tensions there making our area a particular target. We also have 12,000 domestic properties at risk of flooding from the Thames. The lower Thames works have taken place as far as the constituency, but do not protect areas in the lower part of the constituency and further on down to the Thames itself via Teddington. So there are risks of flooding that have not necessarily been mitigated by the previous works on the river.
	Not only is Windsor more vulnerable to such incidents, but single incidents could be far more catastrophic because there are lots of people living close together. Windsor is full of multiple occupancy buildings. We have many hotels, boarding schools, guest houses and dwellings converted to multiple flats. Windsor has 8 million visitors, 750,000 of whom stay overnight in the town. Furthermore, the local economy sustains 7,000 registered businesses-twice as many as Reading, which has a footprint that is five times larger.
	There are also irreplaceable elements of our national heritage. Windsor contains nine historic parks and gardens, 17 scheduled ancient monuments and no fewer than 941 listed buildings. One of those buildings is Windsor castle-but no one thought to programme the terrible fire in 1992 into this new piece of software. The Windsor castle fire may as well never have happened for all the impact it is having on the policy in Berkshire.
	As I said before, it might be right to increase cover in other parts of the constituency and county, but it is not sensible to reduce Windsor fire cover further. A major incident is more likely there, and is more likely to be highly lethal-to say nothing of the disruption to the national heritage.
	The software decided that Windsor could be covered from Slough's fire station, but there are three problems with that. First, Slough fire station is the busiest station in east Berkshire. Indeed, I would argue that Slough was already overburdened with incidents. The second problem is that even if the fire station in Slough is available, its response times will be three to 10 times longer than Windsor fire station's. The difference between three minutes to attend a fire and 10 or 12 minutes can be a matter of life and death. Thirdly, the calculations for attendance times from Slough apply to good conditions on the roads. The route from Slough fire station to Windsor passes through the junction 6 interchange on the M4. In bad traffic the roundabout and the roads on both sides become badly congested, as anyone who uses the M4 will testify. If a major incident occurred in Windsor during peak traffic-for instance, a collision between junctions 6 and 7 on a Friday evening-critical time, and possibly lives, could be lost.
	Those are the reasons why my constituency has rallied behind the outstanding campaign run by Michael Rowley of the Windsor branch of the Fire Brigades Union. He has set up a website, windsorfirestation.co.uk, and I am pleased to say that even our party leader came down to visit Windsor fire station to meet red watch and green watch and show his support for keeping the fire station open 24 hours a day. As a result, the fire authority agreed not to shut our fire station completely, but to shut it for only 12 hours a day, which was a great victory for the campaign. However, the closure of the station overnight remains unacceptable to Windsor residents. The royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is a Conservative council-not that that is particularly relevant: the points I am making apply to all councils-but all parties on the council are united on this matter. We are not talking about a party political issue at all; in fact, there is an active local campaign, involving local activists, local residents, the political parties and councillors, to keep the fire station open 24 hours a day.
	Negotiations with the fire authority and a judicial review have so far proved fruitless, so the royal borough's outstanding council leader, David Burbage, turned to the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to see whether that could do the trick. The original intention of the 2007 Act was to provide a mechanism to shift power between levels of local government in an area, provided that there is firm support from the local community. Under the SCA, the royal borough applied to take over fire responsibility for the borough from the county fire authority, and was even prepared to pay whatever extra it might take to keep the Windsor fire station open. It was therefore not a matter of resources; it was a matter of the will of the people in the area. The royal borough expects that it could run a fire service more cheaply because it is a much bigger authority than the fire service and could easily incorporate the personnel, recruitment, and health and safety systems at a lower cost, potentially, than that which the existing fire authority pays.
	However, in practice, if the authority assumed responsibility for the Windsor fire service, it would probably seek tender from neighbouring fire services. That could easily mean Berkshire fire service being contracted back to run fire cover in Windsor and Maidenhead, but on terms that kept Windsor fire station fully operational. Two former chief fire officers helped to draft a proposal, and there was extensive consultation. The results were pretty clear: local people and the various bodies consulted supported the idea. When presented with a range of options, two thirds of respondents preferred the service to be managed by the local authority, while only 12 per cent. chose to keep the service with the Berkshire fire and rescue service. However, the fact that local residents want Windsor to keep its fire station open overnight-local activists, local councillors, local voluntary workers and the local faith community all want it, and I have been campaigning for it for the past four or five years-counted for nothing with the Local Government Association.
	As an official selector under the SCA, the Local Government Association turned down the application, saying that it was unviable and unsustainable. I would argue that that decision was highly questionable. We are not convinced that the process was conducted in a thorough fashion. It has been suggested that, as the application by the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead had already passed, it ought to have been happy with what it had been given.
	There are several smaller fire authorities in existence that are perfectly viable, sustainable and highly graded. The LGA's argument-it was not a big argument; it was almost a one-liner-was that the Windsor and Maidenhead fire service was too small to be manageable or viable, but those other small fire authorities have been highly graded. An example is the Isle of Wight. No one would suggest that that fire service is unviable or unsustainable. So the case that ours was too small does not really hold water. Neither does the argument that the rest of Berkshire would be too small without Windsor being part of it.
	Section 2 of the SCA specifically enables transfers of responsibilities between public authorities. There is therefore a suspicion that the LGA made a political decision, in order to avoid upsetting vested public sector interests. If that is the case, it is deeply worrying. The use of the SCA is perceived as a threat to those in locally appointed quangos such as combined fire, police and transport authorities, as they could lose their jobs to elected councils. Those bodies are often officer-led, remote and unresponsive to the electorate. The public have negligible influence or scrutiny over them, and they tend to be fairly unpopular. That is why my party is committed to introducing directly elected police chiefs, who would be more responsive to local people. It might be relevant, therefore, that the LGA has no fewer than 31 fire authorities as members, one of which is Berkshire. Fire authorities form a significant block of stakeholders and fee payers in the LGA.
	The LGA's decision also seems to depend on a narrow interpretation of the SCA. The intention of the SCA was purely to enable the level of local services to be determined by local people. The transfer of responsibilities between levels is clearly empowered by section 2. The Windsor case becomes even stronger for those who followed the Bill's passage through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who introduced the Bill, said that he was planning to use it to enable Northwood police station to stay open longer hours. The Minister who saw the Bill through from the Government Benches, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), talked about an elected council using the threat of an SCA application to bring police authorities round to its point of view. A clause that would have justified the LGA's interpretation, by denying a council the ability to make applications regarding services of a wider or national significance, was struck down in Committee and did not appear in the Act.
	It would seem that it was not our borough's application that was unsustainable but the fire authority's case against it. It cannot be right that local democracy, empowered under the SCA, should be thwarted by a public sector cartel. The LGA has effectively blocked the will of the people without giving a clear explanation. If the decision is allowed to stand, I fear that the SCA might be a busted flush, at least in regard to major extensions of democratic control.
	In addition to local residents, activists, politicians and elected officials, an array of local celebrities has also been campaigning for Windsor fire station. This shows the strength of feeling on the issue. I would like to press the Government to confirm that transfers of responsibility from appointed, single-purpose authorities to democratically elected councils are encompassed by the Act, where appropriate. Was it the intention that the Act would enable such transfers of powers in regard to fire and police services, as well as other, similar public services?
	I would like to reopen the question of the Local Government Association remaining as the selector under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. How can an organisation paid to protect the interests of 31 fire authorities credibly stand in judgment over bids to secede from those same authorities? There is a vested interest at stake there, which I do not think would be allowed in any other area of public life. I respectfully urge the Government to restore faith in the SCA by considering what other bodies could fulfil the selector role more credibly than the LGA, the current occupant. How might this change take place? What powers do the Government have under the SCA to appoint a different selector?
	If the selector had clearly laid out the reasons for the rejection of the royal borough's bid to take over the fire services and had provided a reasoned argument to explain why it considered the bid unviable or unsustainable, there would have been more understanding of the position adopted. At the moment, it seems to be a peremptory dismissal, without deep or thorough consideration, which does not bode well, especially if other selectors were to operate in the same way.
	Local people were prepared to pay a bit more to keep the fire service open overnight in Windsor, yet bizarrely, even on that basis, the LGA still rejected the bid. It shows that the decision was not to do with money or resources; there is something else going on, which makes me worry that the SCA may not be fulfilling its original objectives.
	Perhaps some software could be found to do the job of changing the selector-although I do not hold out great hopes on that. If the Minister cannot satisfy Windsor by asking the selector to give a clear and reasoned answer as to why it rejected the bid, or if she is not prepared to look at changing the selector, this issue is not going to go away. Windsor and its fire service will be the first of many subjects of complaint received in the House that, despite the aim of the SCA-and, I would argue, of the Government-to allow authorities to transfer powers between them, that aim has not been brought about in reality.
	Let me summarise the two main points. First, what is the path to follow in order to change the selector? Secondly, will the Minister apply pressure to ensure that we get a reasoned argument in the public domain explaining why the LGA rejected the application? That is the only way to avoid casting aspersions on the LGA's motives, as it seems it is inevitably attracted by decisions that appear both perverse and irrational. I shall conclude my remarks there and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

David Drew: I shall be brief, but the Local Government Association asked me to say a few words. I was the best apologist that it could get, given the absence of my co-conspirators the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), who did so much to get the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 on to the statute book. I cannot and would not want to discuss the Windsor fire station in any detail, just as, presumably, the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) would not want to discuss the fire stations in my constituency. However, I want to express some sympathy for the LGA, given the circumstances with which it has been wrestling.
	It seems rather bizarre that the LGA should be criticised for what it did not let through. Some of us would argue that it let an awful lot through in the first round of bids, and the Government are currently trying to wrestle with all that the LGA agreed to in its capacity as selector. I want to discuss why we ended up choosing the LGA as the selector, given all its possible faults, and to suggest that we stay with it for the time being. During the passage of the Bill that became the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, we discussed which organisation would be the appropriate selector. We considered creating a new selector, but ultimately we opted for the LGA because it was a representative body of local government and we felt it would best reflect what local government wanted, given that local government had been a driver for the Act.
	As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, this week we have been wrestling with the Bill that will enhance the 2007 Act-the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill, which we hope will become law and which includes parish and town councils. I declare an interest, as I always do: I am still a town councillor. The position was always going to be a bit rough and ready, at least for the first year, because of the number of bids received. The Minister will give more details, but many hundreds of bids must have been received, given that so far the LGA has sent some 190 on to be distilled and assessed.
	As the hon. Member for Windsor said, we need to open up other parts of the statutory sector and even parts of the non-statutory sector, and to try to persuade them to think in different ways-which chimes with the Government's approach in Total Place-so that, hopefully, we can save money and do things better. However, that will not be easy.
	I know that the LGA has been trying to contact the hon. Gentleman. I ask him not to beat up the messenger. We are trying to convey the message, and there are bound to be some disappointed parties.

Adam Afriyie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the appointment of the LGA. My primary complaint relates to the lack of a reasoned and logical response that could subsequently be considered. The argument made by local people was dismissed in a peremptory fashion, and there are strong suspicions that it had more to do with politicking and the LGA's protection of its own interests as appointees than with the democratic wishes of the people of Windsor.

David Drew: I agree, but the good thing is that it was not party political. For all sorts of reasons, the LGA's dominant influence at present is much more in tune with the thinking of the hon. Gentleman's party than with mine. However, as I have said, I have some sympathy for the LGA. I think that it would claim to have been overwhelmed with interest. All of us who sponsored the Bill thought it wonderful that there was so much interest out there, but mistakes were bound to be made-especially during the first year-and, more particularly, there was bound to be that overwhelming amount of interest, as a result of which the LGA has not been debriefing people. I did ask, and the Bill's three sponsors have had meetings with the LGA, which took us through the process and asked us to be sympathetic. It could not pretend that it would get things right during the first year, because of the number of inquiries that it was receiving.
	I should like a process of distillation to govern the way in which the bids reach the LGA and then central Government, who are currently having to wrestle with 190 bids, all of which have merit but not all of which will contribute to the process of change. My first point is that this is work in progress and that legislation can never substitute for people getting on with one another and making things happen. Even Government Ministers cannot do it all by themselves and have to rely on a great deal of effort elsewhere. The second point is that I do not want to put off those who, in subsequent years, might want to make a bid. Perhaps more effort needs to go into how a bid is formulated. One of the criticisms has been of the degree to which the bids built a coalition of support. The hon. Gentleman said that a great deal of work went into building the consensus, something that may not have been true in terms of some of the other cases at which I have looked.

Joan Walley: Given the interest that there will be in other local authorities around the country who want to build sustainable communities and will be working in partnership with residents, community organisations and the third sector, will my hon. Friend give the House an idea as to what the bids would look like if they were to be successful?

David Drew: That is a hornet's nest. The bids were of every shape, size and dimension one could imagine. Some were quite narrowly focused-I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will help me out of the mess that I have created for myself-and would not have taken a lot of effort to introduce. Some were huge in their implications and would involve major expenditure changes on a local level, and even a national level, because of the implications. Having looked at the 190 bids, I was very partial to some myself. I might have shrugged my shoulders at some and said that people might like them but they would not be delivered in a month of Sundays. That includes those that were potentially in opposition to Government policy. That would cause some difficulties.
	This is a learning process and we have not got it right yet. The LGA needs help, as do central Government, but there are some brilliant ideas out there. That was the whole point about the local works coalition bringing forward the idea. It said that it would allow a thousand flowers to bloom; it has, literally, allowed a thousand flowers to bloom. Many authorities that did not get involved in the first round are watching carefully. I urge them not to despair or to say that the Bill is another piece of useless Westminster pontificating that will make no difference to their lives.
	The challenge is good and will make the LGA think again. It will make the Government and the sponsors think again, as they will be reading my remarks; they are not very good but they are defending the system that we put in place. The hon. Member for Windsor has done us a favour; he has referred to one of the bids that did not get through. I suspect a lot more will not get through, and central Government, through the Minister, must offer a defence. It will not be easy. That does not mean that what we are doing is wrong; it just has to be better and we must bring people in. I have tried to be an apologist for what we have done. We cannot pretend that we have got it right but the legislation is worthy and could allow for much better decision making at a local level.

Barbara Follett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on securing the debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for his timely and informative intervention.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this issue tirelessly. I pay tribute to him for representing his constituents so well. Our fire and rescue services have a vital role to play in the protection of our communities and we all owe the men and women in them a huge debt of gratitude. They do essential life-saving work, which we all value. My Department also values their work and has invested £1 billion in equipment and technology to ensure that the service is prepared to face 21st-century challenges such as terrorism, to which he referred.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's pride in Windsor's fire station and the service it provides. It exemplifies the Governments belief that local providers are the ones best placed make decisions about service provision in their areas. That has not always been so. Before 2003, fire and rescue authorities wishing to close a fire station or redeploy pumping appliances were obliged to seek the approval of the Secretary of State beforehand. My Government abolished this requirement when we introduced integrated risk management planning. That gave the Royal Berkshire fire and rescue service the freedom to consider changing the level of fire cover at Windsor fire station. Such changes are subject to full consultation with those affected, of course, and this has taken place in Windsor over the past few years, as the hon. Gentleman said. Although I completely understand why he is disappointed at the decision to reduce the level of service at Windsor fire station, I hope he will also understand why Ministers could not become directly involved.
	As my hon. Friend said, the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 was designed to try to reawaken people's interest in democracy and politics at the local level by transferring some power. Under the Act, the Secretary of State sent out an invitation to local authorities to make proposals-local authorities act as the gatekeeper for proposals, because otherwise the Government would be in danger of being swamped. Local authorities were invited to make proposals that they believed would improve the sustainability-I should emphasise that word-of their local area, including the transfer of assets if they think it would achieve the outcome requested. However, each proposal had to be assessed on its own merits by the selector.
	In its proposal, Windsor and Maidenhead asked if financial and operational responsibility for the local fire and rescue services could be transferred from the Royal Berkshire fire and rescue service to the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead by changing the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to allow the royal borough to be made a fire authority scheme. The 2004 Act requires that, before any proposals to transfer functions are submitted, the local authority in question must consult the persons whose functions it could affect. Although I am not going to comment on the process the local authority went through before submitting its proposal, I should mention that the Royal Berkshire fire and rescue service did not feel that it had been adequately consulted, and that led it to submit an application for judicial review.
	There was another obstacle to the proposal. As the chosen selector body under the 2007 Act, the LGA had a legal duty to submit a shortlist of proposals for the Secretary of State to consider, but it decided not to shortlist the one from Windsor and Maidenhead. It gave the reasons for this refusal. Members of the selector panel felt that the proposal would be very complex to implement and were concerned that the small size of the proposed authority would make it not viable. The panel also noted the impact that the proposal could have on the strategic role and service implications of the fire authority across the remaining county area. In addition, members of the selector panel expressed concern that the amount of resources available to the authority might not be sufficient to allow the authority to undertake the full range of responsibilities of a fire and rescue service. It specifically mentioned the impact on sustainability that the proposal could have in the surrounding areas, but the LGA did offer support to both the council and fire authority in attempting to reach a more satisfactory conclusion.
	The selector's decision not to shortlist the proposal was obviously deeply disappointing to the hon. Gentleman and to the local authority concerned. However, the proposal was assessed by the selector on its merits and, I believe, the decision was even deferred by the panel so that it could consider the proposal in more detail.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the lack of a reasoned response. Minutes of the selector panel's discussions and the reason for its decisions are set out on the Local Government Association website. Indeed, the LGA sent him a letter today, outlining the process and offering once again to work with both the authority and the fire and rescue service to try to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I disagree with him on this point: the decision was not peremptory. The 2007 Act was working in that case.
	As my hon. Friend said, the shortlist was very long. There were 199 proposals, which when disaggregated came to 242 separate asks of Government. It is this Minister who is trying to disentangle those asks, with the help of the LGA, which has put an enormous amount of work and effort into trying to process the proposals as fairly as possible.
	I assure the hon. Member for Windsor that we intend to develop the 2007 Act. In fact, the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Bill, the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), attempts to take forward the 2007 Act. It is hoped that the Bill will complete its passage through the House before Dissolution. The Government support the Bill because it will make the process more efficient and more responsive to the needs of local people. It will also allow us to capture and use the experience we have gained so far-experience such as that of the hon. Member for Windsor-to improve the procedure for the next round.
	This is the first time such a large exercise has been undertaken and I know that lessons can be learned by all concerned, including the selector panel. That is why the amendment Bill is so valuable. It will give the hon. Gentleman and Windsor and Maidenhead council the opportunity to influence the future working of the 2007 Act.

Adam Afriyie: I thank the Minister for her careful and reasoned response. I am pleased that we are able to have the debate. If I understand correctly what she is saying, it would be possible for the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to reapply in the next round, because that round might look different from the previous one. Have I heard her correctly?

Barbara Follett: The hon. Gentleman has heard me correctly-as long as the myriad amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) do not prevent the amendment Bill from going through the House.
	The Government want an amended Sustainable Communities Act to be part of the architecture of local government. We want to give councils the chance to embrace all the opportunities the Act presents. I reassure the hon. Member for Windsor that there will be a second round, and that Windsor and Maidenhead will have a second chance to submit.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.